I don't think the word n-word is an alternative to the n-word. Which is kinda the point I made in the original post - a lady of the night is a prostitute is a whore, it's the same thing, the same meaning, if used in the same context.
Your last paragraph hints at this but:
What someone is really saying when they say the n-word is the word nigger. That's what I understand it as. And, if the n-word is so offensive it mustn't be said at all, in any context, then the word n-word mustn't be used either. For other sorts of words that can be used in a not-so-nice context, usually we deal with this fact by simply saying that it was "insulting language" or "offensive" or that it "bears not being repeated". That's the sensitive way to deal with slurs, I think.
I won't let the reaction of a sample of people dictate how I express myself, and I will not hold other people to that standard either.
When did the pursuit of rationality get replaced by the onslaught of feelings? A person can feel insulted, without someone else insulting them. It happens all the time - it's called a misunderstanding. Along the same lines, we may brisk at language not offensive at all, made by people whom through no fault of their own were misunderstood.
And lets not pretend offensive language is not a natural part of how humans (that's us) express ourselves. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be so many swears.
And so we come back to the bigger issue. It is my belief that the society in which I live should be a rational one, and each person in it a rational actor who can distinguish between subtle nuances of meaning, both implied and expressed, and not rely on the stark contrast between allowed and disallowed, accepted or unaccepted. And I fear that if we pursue a mindless list of rules for behaviour, we will be less free for doing so.
We must show humility, knowing that we are not the just judge of each other, and give the benefit of doubt. It is not morally right to participate in a witch hunt on someone for _a word_ said years ago - so I will condemn doing so.
Surely meaning is foremost dictated by context? English does not have a context free grammar.
I can say the actual n-word without meaning to enflame or diminish - it is very easy in fact: take a sentence where I would have used the literal n-word, and replace it with the actual n-word.
What's the difference between saying n-word and the actual word? The concept that symbolises in my head is the same - and so any difference necessarily is to the benefit of the speaker, not the listener.
When the data no longer fits inside a compute resource (a node, or even a rack), you are by necessity going to be distributed. Communication is a fact of life when the problem-size grows. This is true also for GPU-based computing.
>"It found that “daughter-divorce” risk emerges only in a first-born girl’s teenage years (see chart). Before they reach the age of 12, daughters are no more linked to couples splitting up than sons are. “If fathers were really more likely to take off because they preferred sons, surely they wouldn’t wait 13 years to do so,” reasons Dr Kabatek."
Maybe parts of the article I could not access goes more into detail, but this is an odd perspective when it is known that women initiate 70% of divorces (see fig. 1 in [0]).
But I never said that, you're building a strawman.
I said that punishment is a necessary part of prison, it is the main thing of justice. You may or may not agree with that position, but unless you are willing to reply to me on a good faith basis maybe you just shouldn't. The HN guidelines say
>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
It is not sort of reasonable that you think "some part of me"(what do you mean by that?) argues for it, because I never wrote it. If you or other people did not understand some part of my original comment, ask for a clarification instead of what has happened in these comment chains.
You are building the strawman of strawmen here. I never gave a reason that prisoners should be treated worse, as that implies I am arguing for an increase in punishment compared to the situation today. Which I nowhere did.
Perhaps to nuance the discussion a bit, the majority of people in state prisons in the US are there for violent offenses, and state prisons hold a majority of all prisoners. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
I was not complaining about anything. They aren't ex-felons, after they are released, they are felons.
I do not think you understood my original comment, since you keep quoting that sentence only. Where is the restitution to the aggrieved party? The assaulted, the robbed, the beaten, the raped? You pay for what you do, and if your enterprise is criminal, you pay in time behind bars. Personal responsibility. Why would anyone want to hire a wife-beater? There are millions of upstanding citizens out of work ...
I think that retribution, which is of course the principal component of justice, is a key part of prisons. Somewhere the scales must be balanced, and if not in prisons, where then? Should the assaulted be happy with the fact that the inmate will get a job?
That is not to say that prisons should be blind to the fact that inmates will eventually be released. There are plenty of people who have committed no crime, but go hungry. Where is their free lunch?
Your post made me remember [0]. Can you get any more polarizing than suggesting that your opponent will start the nuclear anhilatiom of the modern world?
Your last paragraph hints at this but: What someone is really saying when they say the n-word is the word nigger. That's what I understand it as. And, if the n-word is so offensive it mustn't be said at all, in any context, then the word n-word mustn't be used either. For other sorts of words that can be used in a not-so-nice context, usually we deal with this fact by simply saying that it was "insulting language" or "offensive" or that it "bears not being repeated". That's the sensitive way to deal with slurs, I think.