That's an interesting thing. Most people are biased to think that everyone else sees things the same way they do. If Adam says pears are just as tasty as apples, and Bob thinks pears taste like shit, then Bob will jumpt to the conclusion that Adam thinks apples taste bad. Because Bob is incapable of imagining that Adam disagrees with Bob on the taste of pears. Whichever is the more deeply held belief is the one projected onto the one drawing the equation. If I say the N word and the other N word have a single thing in common, then I must be making light of racism, because people believe I must agree with their disdain for narcissists more strongly than they believe I must agree with their progressive views on race. Perhaps because they hold the disdain for narcissists more closely.

I actually do think the racial N word is a whole world more offensive and more serious than the other N word. I was just drawing a single point of similarity: They both have an older, non-bigoted root in another language. And I was just using that single point of similarity to attack a bigot's argument. But it's interesting how most people will turn a single point of similarity into a sweeping statement.

[–] commiewithoutorgans@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

Marxism as a framework already answers many of these questions sufficiently for me by taking the social whole always into account as relativity van ABSOLUTE relativity. That's why I describe it as harm, not as some inherent good or bad outside of the social structure of its use. And I think it's relatively much more harmful to black people to be called the N word than to those with NPD being called the other n word (considering the ways that oppression occurs to such groups being actuele different). That is not an excuse to use the word tho