I think labelling people "racist" or "bigot" can be counterproductive. You can have people with seriously racist beliefs, or with attachment to and unwillingness to give up their advantages in a deeply racist society, who can nevertheless say "I don't tick any of the boxes on the racist definition, so I am not racist and furthermore don't need to give another thought to any of this." Splitting the world into "racists" and "non-racists" probably does more harm than good.
When I was a child I was taught about the important virtues of faith, hope and charity.
I could never understand ,as a child, why 'hope' was so important.
Over 70 years later I do understand just how important 'hope ' is. Without it there is a lack of hope or 'despair'.
To me it is not naïve to keep hoping and working towards the day that there is equality of opportunity and parity of esteem for all.
@Boogie , loved the encouragement to gently chip away, thank you!
@KarlLB , if a 2) has racism explained many times yet behaves as a 1), in my book they will be treated as such.... unless I suspect A Problem. In which case I will offer them another cup of tea.
@lilbuddha , oh my........ and thank you. Your ‘spelling it out clearly’ helps.....
@Soror Magna as to your question: Upthread , there was discussion about calling relations out over racist talk. The question of elderly relatives was raised and iirc at the time there were many opinions.
I suppose I only started this thread to say It Is Not As Easy As Some Are Saying! Some agree, some disagree. I hope we are all in agreement that it is not Always Easy.
@fineline in relation to my comment about Fairness and Manners......
(.......Apologies, please expect to see me in Styx as I learn how to do the linky thing......)
There was a spat, I felt that it had got nasty so called it out. Had I not been a parent of many, in all probability I would have been more eloquent. I was cross!
Mercifully the vessel in which we are travelling righted itself and we sailed on. Nothing more said on the matter and I am valuing the contributions from both parties.
That said........ I Totally get the utter frustration that is around the place at the mo......
@mousethief ..... so as far as it goes, this sounds interesting. At the risk of everything going overboard..... would you mind unpacking this?
Not sure what you want as far as unpacking goes. I will add that it' snot enough to not be racist, one has to be antiracist. Whites for instance in this country have been reaping the benefits of the racist set-up, and we must work to dismantle the set-up and create a society that is at long last really the Land of the Free. POC can't dismantle it because they are not empowered; that's the problem. It's up to us. At the very very least we need to speak up against racist acts and the systems and mechanisms that perpetuate the caste system. Labeling people as "racist" or "not racist" doesn't further that aim.
Even very deliberately at a football match - https://tinyurl.com/y85ezwro The link takes you to an article where a plane flew over Manchester City’s stadium shortly after the players, coaching staff and match officials had taken the knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. The banner said ‘White lives matter Burnley. Burnley FC swiftly issued a statement that apologised “unreservedly to the Premier League, to Manchester City and to all those helping to promote Black Lives Matter”.
I note also that the airport the plane came from have banned further banner flights for the time being.
Presumably someone made the banner, and didn't say "hey, wait a moment I'm not going to get involved in making racist statements". And, did the pilot and/or the owners of the plane ask what the banner would say and likewise decide to participate in making a racist statement.
Tbf the usage I was questioning was "gyp" meaning discomfort or pain; despite this sense of the word doesn't come from 'gypsy', if people think it does, what then?
I wouldn't use the term, personally. It is nothing to give up that word in order to avoid insult to someone else. Not like there are no other terms to use.
I think that's right, which is why my stubborn, petulant and deliberate blindness over the c---t word is so hypocritical. It's going to have to go on my list too. I have to remember that Sam Bee and Hannah Gadsby are women and I'm not, and that makes a difference.
@KarlLB There are some days when I remember the distinction about the pain meaning. Most days I don't remember
Tbf the usage I was questioning was "gyp" meaning discomfort or pain; despite this sense of the word doesn't come from 'gypsy', if people think it does, what then?
I'd treat it like I would any other word that could in context distract from the intended meaning. There may be nothing intentionally or etymologically racist about "gyp" or "niggard" or "chink" in many contexts, but if I know that using them is going to make the person I'm talking to think about racist terms, and that's irrelevant to what I want to say, it would be sensible to pick another word. That would still be true if I thought the other person ignorant or silly, or even that they were intentionally looking to take offence - if I'm trying to communicate with them, it's better to use words that they will hear without distraction.
In other contexts I would avoid "cock" or "ass" for similar reasons, even though they have established meanings that are not at all rude. I don't think that they are bad words, only that sometimes they are unserviceable words.
There may be nothing intentionally or etymologically racist about "gyp" or "niggard" or "chink" in many contexts, but if I know that using them is going to make the person I'm talking to think about racist terms, and that's irrelevant to what I want to say, it would be sensible to pick another word.
Tailoring your language to the person you're talking to sounds like skilful communication.
And yes, there are dirty-minded people with whom it might be better not to discuss one's male chickens.
It wouldn't naturally have occurred to me to avoid using "niggardly" to lilbuddha, but I can see that might be wise advice.
Similarly, avoiding Nazi references when addressing any German shipmates might avoid unnecessary distractions. Without going all Basil Fawlty about it...
It wouldn't naturally have occurred to me to avoid using "niggardly" to lilbuddha, but I can see that might be wise advice.
There was a case a few years ago that we discussed on the ship, where someone accused someone else of being a "niggard" (I think it was some sort of school board / local council meeting, but don't remember the details), and the party of the second part, being unfamiliar with the word "niggard", assumed that they had been called a similar-sounding offensive word, and took umbrage.
Personally, I prefer the word "niggard" to "miser" because it's harsh sounds seem so much more appropriate for describing that kind of person. But Eliab is right that there's scope for confusion (both in hearing the word used, and in understanding its etymology), and niggard, as a noun, is fairly obscure - quite a lot more obscure than the adjective.
So, like Eliab, I'd only use it in contexts where I thought it would be understood, but that's true of all my word choices. If I'm speaking to a colleague for whom English is their third or fourth language, then I'm going to make different choices from those that I'd make with a native English speaker.
Then there's the case of the rather puerile racist, who thinks it funny to make a game of using words that sound a bit like the offensive term you're all thinking of in the presence of Black people, to try and get a response. Those people are pretty obvious - and obviously racist.
It wouldn't naturally have occurred to me to avoid using "niggardly" to lilbuddha, but I can see that might be wise advice.
There was a case a few years ago that we discussed on the ship, where someone accused someone else of being a "niggard" (I think it was some sort of school board / local council meeting, but don't remember the details), and the party of the second part, being unfamiliar with the word "niggard", assumed that they had been called a similar-sounding offensive word, and took umbrage.
I recall that thread. I said then that I did use niggard in its proper sense and that I'd continue to use it as appropriate. I don't see why my correct use of a word should be affected by the poor understanding of the language by others.
It wouldn't naturally have occurred to me to avoid using "niggardly" to lilbuddha, but I can see that might be wise advice.
There was a case a few years ago that we discussed on the ship, where someone accused someone else of being a "niggard" (I think it was some sort of school board / local council meeting, but don't remember the details), and the party of the second part, being unfamiliar with the word "niggard", assumed that they had been called a similar-sounding offensive word, and took umbrage.
I recall that thread. I said then that I did use niggard in its proper sense and that I'd continue to use it as appropriate. I don't see why my correct use of a word should be affected by the poor understanding of the language by others.
Nice Christian attitude.
The word calls to mind the offensive word, even to those of us who know its use and origin.
Why is your habit worth more than the association with its similar sounding word?
I don't see why my correct use of a word should be affected by the poor understanding of the language by others.
Because the point of communication is to communicate, not to show we understand the meaning of words others don’t. Words are tools of communication, and good communication requires using the right tools.
“Niggardly” is almost never heard or used here in my experience, and use of “niggard” is even more rare. That’s probably largely due the fact that it sounds too much like a very offensive word, and use of either word is very likely to derail conversation.
I know perfectly well what “niggard” and “niggardly” mean. But I would never use either, because, as @Leorning Cniht says, the risk of confusion is too high, and risking that confusion—and causing offense in the process—is counter to the goal of good communication. As @lilbuddha says, English provides me with ample alternatives that don’t carry the same risk of confusion and offense.
“Niggardly” is almost never heard or used here in my experience, and use of “niggard” is even more rare. That’s probably largely due the fact that it sounds too much like a very offensive word, and use of either word is very likely to derail conversation.
"Niggardly" is used from time to time here. For example, a testator may be said to have made niggardly provision for his widow. Nothing un-Christian about that nor in similar instances where I'd use it.
“Niggardly” is almost never heard or used here in my experience, and use of “niggard” is even more rare. That’s probably largely due the fact that it sounds too much like a very offensive word, and use of either word is very likely to derail conversation.
"Niggardly" is used from time to time here. For example, a testator may be said to have made niggardly provision for his widow. Nothing un-Christian about that nor in similar instances where I'd use it.
I didn’t say it was un-Christian.
I responded to your statement—“I don't see why my correct use of a word should be affected by the poor understanding of the language by others,” which certainly suggests a willingness to use it with those who don’t know what it means —by saying that the desire to effectively communicate would be a good reason for your use of a word to be affected by the poor understanding of the language by others. And I stand by that.
Yes, but that was not directed at you. It was a reference to another poster's comment.
Mine. Thinking about one's own comfort rather than other people's is decidedly un-Christian, especially when the cost to the user of the word is negligible.
'niggard' and 'niggardly' are words of Scandinavian origin and have nothing whatsoever to do with 'n....er' Fair enough to say that we should try not to use words which other people do not know. when speaking to people. What about 'niggle' or 'niggling' coming ,possibly like 'niggardly' from Scandinavian words meaning to save and to scrape.
'niggard' and 'niggardly' are words of Scandinavian origin and have nothing whatsoever to do with 'n....er' Fair enough to say that we should try not to use words which other people do not know. when speaking to people. What about 'niggle' or 'niggling' coming ,possibly like 'niggardly' from Scandinavian words meaning to save and to scrape.
The origin of the word does not save it from being a homophone of a truly offensive word. We have plenty of other words that mean the same thing.
What about 'niggle' or 'niggling' coming ,possibly like 'niggardly' from Scandinavian words meaning to save and to scrape.
The origin of the word does not save it from being a homophone of a truly offensive word. We have plenty of other words that mean the same thing.
Yes, "niggle" and "niggard" have the same root, but "niggle" is quite a lot less likely to be confused with the offensive word. So to my mind, "niggle" is safe to use. Whilst "niggard" and the other word aren't homophones, if you don't enunciate the final consonant they do sound the same.
As I said earlier, in abstract, I prefer "niggard" over "miser" because its harsh consonant sounds seem to better capture the ugliness of niggardliness. But we don't live in abstract. Here in the real world:
1. Many people haven't heard of the word "niggard" and will assume a highly offensive word was used.
2. Some people who have heard of the word "niggard" can't separate it from the fact that it sounds similar to a highly offensive word. If some of those people have frequently been the subject of abuse using that word, it's a reasonable thing to want to have extra care for them and avoid using words that sound too much like it.
3. There's a risk that someone hearing you use "niggard", knowing that both of you know what it means, would nevertheless assume that you were playing cute racist word-games. So I'd take extra care about calling a black person a niggard, because of this risk.
I think in most cases, these downsides outweigh my aesthetic preference for the sound of the word "niggard".
I think in most cases, these downsides outweigh my aesthetic preference for the sound of the word "niggard".
My point. Though I would disagree with you on niggle. It is close enough.
And, yes, I know the words are not true homophones, but I don't know a word for homophonish.
And, yes, I know the words are not true homophones, but I don't know a word for homophonish.
There ought to be one. There's always quasi-homophone or something - I suppose that would work.
I'm not sure I have any really good synonyms for niggle, though. Niggard and miser carry the same meaning - it's just that niggard sounds better. I don't think I have a word that carries all the shades of meaning that niggle does.
Qualm covers it pretty well, on the noun front. Worry on the verb.
Though different words with the same meaning have different flavour, much of that is familiarity.
And still comes down to the same use issues.
Qualm covers it pretty well, on the noun front. Worry on the verb.
Neither is more than vaguely close, I'm afraid.
The best I have for the verb is rankle, but that's too strong. Niggle is milder. For the other sense of the verb, bicker is close, but not one-sided enough.
For the noun? Qualm has the wrong sense - a niggle based in irritation whereas a qualm is based in worry. Wrinkle almost works in some contexts, but not all.
Qualm covers it pretty well, on the noun front. Worry on the verb.
Neither is more than vaguely close, I'm afraid.
The best I have for the verb is rankle, but that's too strong. Niggle is milder. For the other sense of the verb, bicker is close, but not one-sided enough.
For the noun? Qualm has the wrong sense - a niggle based in irritation whereas a qualm is based in worry. Wrinkle almost works in some contexts, but not all.
I'd posit that a person capable of making a proper argument for the use of a particular word also has the mental acuity to communicate effectively without using that word.
I'd posit that a person capable of making a proper argument for the use of a particular word also has the mental acuity to communicate effectively without using that word.
The question is whether "niggle" is too close to the offensive word or not. We agree that "niggard" is rather close, that "miser" is an equivalent as regards meaning, and what it loses in aesthetics is outweighed by the benefit of not crating misunderstanding or upset. "Niggard" is also rather uncommon, which increases the risk of confusion.
"Niggle" is quite a lot further away from that word. You think it's too close, which I assume mean that it's use bothers you, and when you hear it, you are reminded of the offensive epithet. I don't think your opinion here is nearly as widespread. I have a couple of black colleagues who use the word freely, and you're the first person I've encountered who has said they are bothered by it. (As it happened, I discussed the "niggard" issue with one of them when it last came up. He'd heard of "niggardly", but not "niggard" as a noun, and agreed with the general opinion that it would be a good idea not to use it, because someone's going to hear it wrong.)
Unlike niggard, niggle has no exact synonym. Sure - we can communicate without it. We can communicate in simplified forms of English with a very restricted vocabulary, and in some contexts (signage, giving safety instructions, ...) that is appropriate. But that's no reason to take a reductionist approach to all our communication.
I'm not dismissing your point - you're a person, and if you say you are hurt by the use of the word "niggle" then I accept that, and I'll consider avoiding "niggle" because of it. But I suspect you may hold an outlying opinion on this particular matter.
I'd not have thought that miserly and niggardly meant the same. Miserly is not spending your money in support of yourself, family or other dependents. Niggardly is spending little money on one of your dependents who might reasonably expect more. I'm not sure how you can be miserly in a will, since it disposes of all of your property. You can be niggardly towards your widow of you give 90% of your estate to a charity and but 10% to your widow.
Quite frankly, having lilbuddha lecture about being Christian or unchristian is the height of irony.
Host hat on
As lilbuddha correctly points out, this is strictly ad hominem, and it is therefore contrary to Commandment 3. You’re entirely free to argue that lilbuddha is wrong, but not that she’s the wrong person to make the argument. Host hat off
BroJames, Purgatory Host
We appear to be centring the mild discomfort / inconvenience of people of pallor again.
I don't know what you're doing, but as far as I can see, the question is whether (presumably black) people are likely to find the word "niggle" offensive. Lilbuddha seems to be proposing that any word beginning with the syllable "nig" is offensive. My experience of conversation with black friends and colleagues suggests that this is unlikely to be a common opinion.
And that matters - if lots of black people are likely to find "niggle" offensive, then I (and everyone else) shouldn't use it, regardless of the etymology of the word or of our intentions. If, on the other hand, finding "niggle" offensive is an oddball opinion held by lilbuddha and a handful of other people, then what we should try to do is avoid using the word in lilbuddha's over-sensitive hearing.
So I'd be happy for black shipmates to chime in on whether they, personally, find the word "niggle" offensive.
(How easy it is to mishear it for the offensive word is a different question. Lilbuddha's claim is that niggle, niggard, and their derivatives are all offensive in themselves, because they sound similar to an offensive term, even for someone who is familiar with the words and their etymology.)
(How easy it is to mishear it for the offensive word is a different question. Lilbuddha's claim is that niggle, niggard, and their derivatives are all offensive in themselves, because they sound similar to an offensive term, even for someone who is familiar with the words and their etymology.)
Yeah, but no. My contention is that they are likely to be misheard or misunderstood as something worse than they are. Not that they are offensive in themselves.
I am mostly ion this argument because of the "I'm going to say what I want, fuck the listener" attitude than anything else.
As far as my "over-sensitive" hearing, I knew niggard, niggardly and niggle long before I heard nigger. When I hear them, I am more likely to think the person using them is old-fashioned, middle class or posh than I am to assume they are racist.
Yeah, but no. My contention is that they are likely to be misheard or misunderstood as something worse than they are. Not that they are offensive in themselves.
Then I apologise for misunderstanding you. It seems our only point of disagreement is on how likely it is for the word "niggle" to be misheard or misunderstood.
We appear to be centring the mild discomfort / inconvenience of people of pallor again.
I don't know what you're doing, but as far as I can see, the question is whether (presumably black) people are likely to find the word "niggle" offensive.
Really ? The thread was about how to address, or not, racism amongst ones family and close friends - how to make anti-racism happen really. Yet, we appear to have managed to divert into a largely pointless semantic argument. Which looks to me to be a massive distraction from the OP issue.
This seems to me to be part of a broader societal pattern, whereby anti-racism efforts directed at major and difficult problems get diverted into concerns over relatively trivial issues.
The OP’s issue is not about family members using the occasional misinterpretable word.
Qualm covers it pretty well, on the noun front. Worry on the verb.
Neither is more than vaguely close, I'm afraid.
The best I have for the verb is rankle, but that's too strong. Niggle is milder. For the other sense of the verb, bicker is close, but not one-sided enough.
For the noun? Qualm has the wrong sense - a niggle based in irritation whereas a qualm is based in worry. Wrinkle almost works in some contexts, but not all.
I'd posit that a person capable of making a proper argument for the use of a particular word also has the mental acuity to communicate effectively without using that word.
Agree with you on that one. Don't use anything or say anything in such a way that is or might be construed as offensive in any way. It should make us really think about what we say and perhaps, in thinking, we will do less harm in speaking.
Thanks @Doublethink . I was just sitting here getting dizzy......
Possibly this situation perfectly exemplifies what goes on in lots of places tho?
I guess for some people it is going to be a case of ffs......or similar. Those people might get cross.
Then again they may very well listen and weigh the discussion carefully. Deciding if the questioner is or is not being genuine.
Whilst for people doing the asking Do they really truely want to know? If so then they need answers . And this might be a place to genuinely ask questions.
(Or not.....)
Then again ......there would be my difficult relative with the wide eyes insisting that they are innocent of all wrong doing, while at the same time mightily stirring the pot. And being a boringly predictable right royal pain in the proverbial.
And here?
Here we have our screens between us and have no clue. So I guess that we give each other the benefit of the doubt?
Since opening this thread on June 15th ( and it seems like one heck of a lot has happened in our real lives in that time) I have listened a lot. Have read a lot. Have thought a lot. Prayed a lot too . Mostly listened to other people though.
And my considered wisdom is that for Me, in my dealings with My family , there will continue to be rules of engagement. It is not like we all live down the road from each other or anything. When we meet up it is intentional and for a purpose- only. I can ass kick if needed, helped by having age on my side!
So I think I’m done here as far as getting my head around the situation that I personally face.
But thank you because this thread has helped me to challenge my own thoughts and beliefs and i have been brought up short by some nifty challenges to preconceived ideas. Watching other people’s thoughts /ideas being raised and either grappled with or shot down in flames has been....... illuminating.And not always in a good way either...but it has been interesting to watch.
I ve been learning.....
Some of you are still in employment and have a circle of influence larger than mine, I wish you well. Please use it.
My influence reaches less people, but it must count just as much.
Really ? The thread was about how to address, or not, racism amongst ones family and close friends - how to make anti-racism happen really. Yet, we appear to have managed to divert into a largely pointless semantic argument. Which looks to me to be a massive distraction from the OP issue.
Tangents happen on every ship thread. I don't think ones about race are at all special from this point of view. This one seems to have largely resolved itself.
"Pointless semantic argument" tangents are also common on the ship - perhaps because it's easy to argue about semantics, and harder to discuss the big picture. And perhaps because the ship is well-endowed with the sort of people for whom pedantic semantic arguments come naturally.
That said, the question "do people find this offensive" isn't pointless. A similar question came up with regard to using "blind" as a metaphor for people who chose to ignore the evidence in front of them. It's reasonable to pose the question "do blind people find that use offensive". The question was posed and answered in the negative, and we move on.
I think the question of word choice is very much a part of anti-racism, though. "Niggard" is an uncommon word, that sounds a lot like a word that is both very offensive and regrettably more common. I could use it, and know I wasn't being racist, but that's not sufficient. Some people are going to think it's racist. Some of those will be offended by it, and others will be racists who will feel emboldened by imagining they heard me use an offensive racist epithet. It's bad if I use it in the hearing of either of those groups of people.
Rather the same goes for any of the innocuous-sounding phrases that are used as racist dog-whistles. Using them causes harm (both to people who are offended, and to society by emboldening those that are not), even if you intend no harm by it, and are intending the phrase in its strictly literal, non-dog-whistly sense.
Comments
I could never understand ,as a child, why 'hope' was so important.
Over 70 years later I do understand just how important 'hope ' is. Without it there is a lack of hope or 'despair'.
To me it is not naïve to keep hoping and working towards the day that there is equality of opportunity and parity of esteem for all.
@Boogie , loved the encouragement to gently chip away, thank you!
@KarlLB , if a 2) has racism explained many times yet behaves as a 1), in my book they will be treated as such.... unless I suspect A Problem. In which case I will offer them another cup of tea.
@Simon Toad , thank you.
@lilbuddha , oh my........ and thank you. Your ‘spelling it out clearly’ helps.....
@Soror Magna as to your question: Upthread , there was discussion about calling relations out over racist talk. The question of elderly relatives was raised and iirc at the time there were many opinions.
I suppose I only started this thread to say It Is Not As Easy As Some Are Saying! Some agree, some disagree. I hope we are all in agreement that it is not Always Easy.
(.......Apologies, please expect to see me in Styx as I learn how to do the linky thing......)
There was a spat, I felt that it had got nasty so called it out. Had I not been a parent of many, in all probability I would have been more eloquent. I was cross!
Mercifully the vessel in which we are travelling righted itself and we sailed on. Nothing more said on the matter and I am valuing the contributions from both parties.
That said........ I Totally get the utter frustration that is around the place at the mo......
Not sure what you want as far as unpacking goes. I will add that it' snot enough to not be racist, one has to be antiracist. Whites for instance in this country have been reaping the benefits of the racist set-up, and we must work to dismantle the set-up and create a society that is at long last really the Land of the Free. POC can't dismantle it because they are not empowered; that's the problem. It's up to us. At the very very least we need to speak up against racist acts and the systems and mechanisms that perpetuate the caste system. Labeling people as "racist" or "not racist" doesn't further that aim.
Fair enough. It's up to white people to yield their power responsibly for the benefit of the oppressed.
I think that's right, which is why my stubborn, petulant and deliberate blindness over the c---t word is so hypocritical. It's going to have to go on my list too. I have to remember that Sam Bee and Hannah Gadsby are women and I'm not, and that makes a difference.
@KarlLB There are some days when I remember the distinction about the pain meaning. Most days I don't remember
I'd treat it like I would any other word that could in context distract from the intended meaning. There may be nothing intentionally or etymologically racist about "gyp" or "niggard" or "chink" in many contexts, but if I know that using them is going to make the person I'm talking to think about racist terms, and that's irrelevant to what I want to say, it would be sensible to pick another word. That would still be true if I thought the other person ignorant or silly, or even that they were intentionally looking to take offence - if I'm trying to communicate with them, it's better to use words that they will hear without distraction.
In other contexts I would avoid "cock" or "ass" for similar reasons, even though they have established meanings that are not at all rude. I don't think that they are bad words, only that sometimes they are unserviceable words.
Tailoring your language to the person you're talking to sounds like skilful communication.
And yes, there are dirty-minded people with whom it might be better not to discuss one's male chickens.
It wouldn't naturally have occurred to me to avoid using "niggardly" to lilbuddha, but I can see that might be wise advice.
Similarly, avoiding Nazi references when addressing any German shipmates might avoid unnecessary distractions. Without going all Basil Fawlty about it...
There was a case a few years ago that we discussed on the ship, where someone accused someone else of being a "niggard" (I think it was some sort of school board / local council meeting, but don't remember the details), and the party of the second part, being unfamiliar with the word "niggard", assumed that they had been called a similar-sounding offensive word, and took umbrage.
Personally, I prefer the word "niggard" to "miser" because it's harsh sounds seem so much more appropriate for describing that kind of person. But Eliab is right that there's scope for confusion (both in hearing the word used, and in understanding its etymology), and niggard, as a noun, is fairly obscure - quite a lot more obscure than the adjective.
So, like Eliab, I'd only use it in contexts where I thought it would be understood, but that's true of all my word choices. If I'm speaking to a colleague for whom English is their third or fourth language, then I'm going to make different choices from those that I'd make with a native English speaker.
Then there's the case of the rather puerile racist, who thinks it funny to make a game of using words that sound a bit like the offensive term you're all thinking of in the presence of Black people, to try and get a response. Those people are pretty obvious - and obviously racist.
I recall that thread. I said then that I did use niggard in its proper sense and that I'd continue to use it as appropriate. I don't see why my correct use of a word should be affected by the poor understanding of the language by others.
If you want to communicate with those others, you have to meet them where they are.
The word calls to mind the offensive word, even to those of us who know its use and origin.
Why is your habit worth more than the association with its similar sounding word?
“Niggardly” is almost never heard or used here in my experience, and use of “niggard” is even more rare. That’s probably largely due the fact that it sounds too much like a very offensive word, and use of either word is very likely to derail conversation.
I know perfectly well what “niggard” and “niggardly” mean. But I would never use either, because, as @Leorning Cniht says, the risk of confusion is too high, and risking that confusion—and causing offense in the process—is counter to the goal of good communication. As @lilbuddha says, English provides me with ample alternatives that don’t carry the same risk of confusion and offense.
I use it with people who know what it means.
"Niggardly" is used from time to time here. For example, a testator may be said to have made niggardly provision for his widow. Nothing un-Christian about that nor in similar instances where I'd use it.
I responded to your statement—“I don't see why my correct use of a word should be affected by the poor understanding of the language by others,” which certainly suggests a willingness to use it with those who don’t know what it means —by saying that the desire to effectively communicate would be a good reason for your use of a word to be affected by the poor understanding of the language by others. And I stand by that.
Yes, I should have done something to make things clear
Whoa! The irony! It burns!
Yes, "niggle" and "niggard" have the same root, but "niggle" is quite a lot less likely to be confused with the offensive word. So to my mind, "niggle" is safe to use. Whilst "niggard" and the other word aren't homophones, if you don't enunciate the final consonant they do sound the same.
As I said earlier, in abstract, I prefer "niggard" over "miser" because its harsh consonant sounds seem to better capture the ugliness of niggardliness. But we don't live in abstract. Here in the real world:
1. Many people haven't heard of the word "niggard" and will assume a highly offensive word was used.
2. Some people who have heard of the word "niggard" can't separate it from the fact that it sounds similar to a highly offensive word. If some of those people have frequently been the subject of abuse using that word, it's a reasonable thing to want to have extra care for them and avoid using words that sound too much like it.
3. There's a risk that someone hearing you use "niggard", knowing that both of you know what it means, would nevertheless assume that you were playing cute racist word-games. So I'd take extra care about calling a black person a niggard, because of this risk.
I think in most cases, these downsides outweigh my aesthetic preference for the sound of the word "niggard".
And, yes, I know the words are not true homophones, but I don't know a word for homophonish.
There ought to be one. There's always quasi-homophone or something - I suppose that would work.
I'm not sure I have any really good synonyms for niggle, though. Niggard and miser carry the same meaning - it's just that niggard sounds better. I don't think I have a word that carries all the shades of meaning that niggle does.
One can be honest and still contradict oneself.
Though different words with the same meaning have different flavour, much of that is familiarity.
And still comes down to the same use issues.
The best I have for the verb is rankle, but that's too strong. Niggle is milder. For the other sense of the verb, bicker is close, but not one-sided enough.
For the noun? Qualm has the wrong sense - a niggle based in irritation whereas a qualm is based in worry. Wrinkle almost works in some contexts, but not all.
-Paul's letter to the Hypocritites
The question is whether "niggle" is too close to the offensive word or not. We agree that "niggard" is rather close, that "miser" is an equivalent as regards meaning, and what it loses in aesthetics is outweighed by the benefit of not crating misunderstanding or upset. "Niggard" is also rather uncommon, which increases the risk of confusion.
"Niggle" is quite a lot further away from that word. You think it's too close, which I assume mean that it's use bothers you, and when you hear it, you are reminded of the offensive epithet. I don't think your opinion here is nearly as widespread. I have a couple of black colleagues who use the word freely, and you're the first person I've encountered who has said they are bothered by it. (As it happened, I discussed the "niggard" issue with one of them when it last came up. He'd heard of "niggardly", but not "niggard" as a noun, and agreed with the general opinion that it would be a good idea not to use it, because someone's going to hear it wrong.)
Unlike niggard, niggle has no exact synonym. Sure - we can communicate without it. We can communicate in simplified forms of English with a very restricted vocabulary, and in some contexts (signage, giving safety instructions, ...) that is appropriate. But that's no reason to take a reductionist approach to all our communication.
I'm not dismissing your point - you're a person, and if you say you are hurt by the use of the word "niggle" then I accept that, and I'll consider avoiding "niggle" because of it. But I suspect you may hold an outlying opinion on this particular matter.
Host hat on
As lilbuddha correctly points out, this is strictly ad hominem, and it is therefore contrary to Commandment 3. You’re entirely free to argue that lilbuddha is wrong, but not that she’s the wrong person to make the argument.
Host hat off
BroJames, Purgatory Host
I don't know what you're doing, but as far as I can see, the question is whether (presumably black) people are likely to find the word "niggle" offensive. Lilbuddha seems to be proposing that any word beginning with the syllable "nig" is offensive. My experience of conversation with black friends and colleagues suggests that this is unlikely to be a common opinion.
And that matters - if lots of black people are likely to find "niggle" offensive, then I (and everyone else) shouldn't use it, regardless of the etymology of the word or of our intentions. If, on the other hand, finding "niggle" offensive is an oddball opinion held by lilbuddha and a handful of other people, then what we should try to do is avoid using the word in lilbuddha's over-sensitive hearing.
So I'd be happy for black shipmates to chime in on whether they, personally, find the word "niggle" offensive.
(How easy it is to mishear it for the offensive word is a different question. Lilbuddha's claim is that niggle, niggard, and their derivatives are all offensive in themselves, because they sound similar to an offensive term, even for someone who is familiar with the words and their etymology.)
I am mostly ion this argument because of the "I'm going to say what I want, fuck the listener" attitude than anything else.
As far as my "over-sensitive" hearing, I knew niggard, niggardly and niggle long before I heard nigger. When I hear them, I am more likely to think the person using them is old-fashioned, middle class or posh than I am to assume they are racist.
Then I apologise for misunderstanding you. It seems our only point of disagreement is on how likely it is for the word "niggle" to be misheard or misunderstood.
Really ? The thread was about how to address, or not, racism amongst ones family and close friends - how to make anti-racism happen really. Yet, we appear to have managed to divert into a largely pointless semantic argument. Which looks to me to be a massive distraction from the OP issue.
This seems to me to be part of a broader societal pattern, whereby anti-racism efforts directed at major and difficult problems get diverted into concerns over relatively trivial issues.
The OP’s issue is not about family members using the occasional misinterpretable word.
Agree with you on that one. Don't use anything or say anything in such a way that is or might be construed as offensive in any way. It should make us really think about what we say and perhaps, in thinking, we will do less harm in speaking.
Possibly this situation perfectly exemplifies what goes on in lots of places tho?
I guess for some people it is going to be a case of ffs......or similar. Those people might get cross.
Then again they may very well listen and weigh the discussion carefully. Deciding if the questioner is or is not being genuine.
Whilst for people doing the asking Do they really truely want to know? If so then they need answers . And this might be a place to genuinely ask questions.
(Or not.....)
Then again ......there would be my difficult relative with the wide eyes insisting that they are innocent of all wrong doing, while at the same time mightily stirring the pot. And being a boringly predictable right royal pain in the proverbial.
And here?
Here we have our screens between us and have no clue. So I guess that we give each other the benefit of the doubt?
Since opening this thread on June 15th ( and it seems like one heck of a lot has happened in our real lives in that time) I have listened a lot. Have read a lot. Have thought a lot. Prayed a lot too . Mostly listened to other people though.
And my considered wisdom is that for Me, in my dealings with My family , there will continue to be rules of engagement. It is not like we all live down the road from each other or anything. When we meet up it is intentional and for a purpose- only. I can ass kick if needed, helped by having age on my side!
So I think I’m done here as far as getting my head around the situation that I personally face.
But thank you because this thread has helped me to challenge my own thoughts and beliefs and i have been brought up short by some nifty challenges to preconceived ideas. Watching other people’s thoughts /ideas being raised and either grappled with or shot down in flames has been....... illuminating.And not always in a good way either...but it has been interesting to watch.
I ve been learning.....
Some of you are still in employment and have a circle of influence larger than mine, I wish you well. Please use it.
My influence reaches less people, but it must count just as much.
Certainly matters must change. For all of us.
Tangents happen on every ship thread. I don't think ones about race are at all special from this point of view. This one seems to have largely resolved itself.
"Pointless semantic argument" tangents are also common on the ship - perhaps because it's easy to argue about semantics, and harder to discuss the big picture. And perhaps because the ship is well-endowed with the sort of people for whom pedantic semantic arguments come naturally.
That said, the question "do people find this offensive" isn't pointless. A similar question came up with regard to using "blind" as a metaphor for people who chose to ignore the evidence in front of them. It's reasonable to pose the question "do blind people find that use offensive". The question was posed and answered in the negative, and we move on.
I think the question of word choice is very much a part of anti-racism, though. "Niggard" is an uncommon word, that sounds a lot like a word that is both very offensive and regrettably more common. I could use it, and know I wasn't being racist, but that's not sufficient. Some people are going to think it's racist. Some of those will be offended by it, and others will be racists who will feel emboldened by imagining they heard me use an offensive racist epithet. It's bad if I use it in the hearing of either of those groups of people.
Rather the same goes for any of the innocuous-sounding phrases that are used as racist dog-whistles. Using them causes harm (both to people who are offended, and to society by emboldening those that are not), even if you intend no harm by it, and are intending the phrase in its strictly literal, non-dog-whistly sense.