I am not a fan of this idea that certain words cannot even be said. It seems superstitious or authoritarian. Whether using a word in a certain context is impolite is one thing, but to say a word should never been used ever in any context is another.
The "N" word in Watchtower Literature
by ILoveTTATT2 50 Replies latest members adult
-
-
Earnest
ILoveTTATT2 : See, apparently here the word "fucking" was too strong to be used in the Consolation of February 4, 1942, but "niggers" was totally fine.
It was the American Guardian which is being quoted which deleted the expletive, not Consolation. It is the intention behind the use of any word which should be considered, not the word itself. Take the word kaffir which is used in South Africa and has a similar connotation to nigger. Except kaffir means unbeliever and nigger means black. In Islamic countries it seems quite acceptable to describe unbelievers in the Quran as kaffirs. In South Africa you would end up in court.
-
ttdtt
They were Quotes!
The NYT used similar quotes in that time period, should we condemn them?
This is not a just area to criticizes the WT. -
ILoveTTATT2
It shows extreme racism to even allow the word to be printed in WT literature, imho - ILTTATT
And yet you have used it multiple times in this thread.
Let me rephrase. It shows extreme racism by the WT writers to allow such a word to be printed in WT literature like it's nothing, but never print other words that are considered swears. It's extreme racism but at the same time subtle.
What's the difference? -
ILoveTTATT2
I am not a fan of this idea that certain words cannot even be said. It seems superstitious or authoritarian. Whether using a word in a certain context is impolite is one thing, but to say a word should never been used ever in any context is another.
Sure, but in this case, would you expect such a swear to ever be fully printed in a WT literature? Would you expect "fuck" to be in there?
Very easily the Bible can say "and then Abraham fucked Sarah, and she got pregnant." But you would never expect it! -
ILoveTTATT2
It was the American Guardian which is being quoted which deleted the expletive, not Consolation. It is the intention behind the use of any word which should be considered, not the word itself. Take the word kaffir which is used in South Africa and has a similar connotation to nigger. Except kaffir means unbeliever and nigger means black. In Islamic countries it seems quite acceptable to describe unbelievers in the Quran as kaffirs. In South Africa you would end up in court.
Either way... why didn't they also remove the "n" word? -
neat blue dog
One WT from the '90s quoted a priest as saying "to hell with the damn Bible!"
-
ILoveTTATT2
They were Quotes!
Again, if they ever quoted something that had the words "fuck", "cunt", etc... would they delete the swear? I think they would!
The NYT used similar quotes in that time period, should we condemn them?
This is not a just area to criticizes the WT.
Just because they were quotes does not justify that they appeared there, any other swear would have been deleted! -
ILoveTTATT2
The "N" word which is totally unacceptable now WAS acceptable - certainly through to the 1970's in the UK.
And yet... they used it... in 1994... in a mostly American-based religious magazine. -
ILoveTTATT2
One WT from the '90s quoted a priest as saying "to hell with the damn Bible!"
"damn" appears in multiple locations. But it's not as strong of a swear as the n word, imho