Talk:Nig

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from VfD:

Try as I might, I don't think I could find a reason for this to be speedily deleted. But still.... --Golbez 06:48, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Part is a slang dictdef. The faintly encyclopedic part I don't put much faith in since the Google hits that use "nig" and "deconstructionist" together are mostly for white-power hate sites that seem to hate both. Also, this IP address has a very short, questionable history. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

keep.-- billyvamp4 Ok... I wrote it, my email address is billyvamp4@hotmail.com. I also included "ger" which was subsequently deleted. You must allow for this entry to remain. Its ridiculous to to think wikipedia is the vanguard of moral lexical values. While i was researching the edit functions of wikipedia, i inserted bullshit in communims to see if anything is censored. I promptly deleted my edit, though. Please know, im not poking fun... i merely was learning the ropes... now...please... let nig stay... and ger..... it promotes postmodern lexical phiosophy. There is a subculture in Los Angeles that uses the terms "nig" and "ger"... for the sole purpose of promoting this theory of the arbitrary nature of terms. Furthermore, it may undo the abhorrent hold of terms in a PC culture that serves only to attach an intangible quality to terms...solely b/c of its political sensitivity. This is progressive. Im a good liberal, out to promote all walks of life... its time to get over the PC stigma and embrace new terminology. Shalom.

do not delete.-- billyvamp4

Actually, billyvamp, I reverted your vandalism to Communism [1]. You're a vandal. Cdc 22:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I hope you've done enough of your research to realize that Wikipedia is not here to "promote postmodern lexical phiosophy [sic]" or to "undo the abhorrent hold of terms in a PC culture"; Wikipedia is in general not for promoting anything. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps, however, Wikipedia has no right to deny inchoate terms from receiving exposure. It is a term, just like any other term featured on Wikipedia; this one however isn't as readily used as nigger. If you choose to redirect the term nig then allow me to insert the current modes of philosophy that wish to desensitize the term, and promote the arbitrary properties of language in general. You must admit, this word is too controversial to be limited in its range of uses and topics.

Billyvamp4 12:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

redirect to nigger (word). Easy solution. -leigh (φθόγγος) 07:45, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Redirect. Tuf-Kat 08:34, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • del. Mikkalai 09:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect, it's a real short form, but this article is mostly nonsense. Gazpacho 09:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. utcursch 13:06, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect, I think. Jeltz 14:18, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
  • Bull: It has nothing to do with deconstruction or post-structuralism. It has everything to do with clipping. It's just another racist epithet. Redirect to nigger (word) might work, but the contributor of this article was hoaxing and bears watching. To the contributor: do not make stuff up. Geogre 15:50, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Cdc 22:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Gamaliel 22:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • keep Excuse me? But what right do any of you have to deny this term as an example of postmodern theory. To George, perhaps youre not well versed in postmodern theory, but allowing the stigma of racism and PC culture to govern your opinion on the entry of the term nig is absurd. I was not hoaxing. There is a formidable LA scene that utilizes this term in the ironic way its presented. Get over your biases. Im a jew, does not mean I'll fuss over one of the provided terms for ger. billyvamp4.
    • Your comments are welcome, but you can't vote twice. Gamaliel 22:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Billyvamp4, the fact remains that the article you wrote is nearly meaningless. "Typically espoused to an ironic deconstructionist agenda"? "Espoused to" is nonstandard English; perhaps you meant "attributed to"? I quite honestly have no idea what you're trying to say in this paragraph. If you'd like to elaborate on the ironic/postmodern attempts to "reclaim" terms like nigger, faggot, queer, cunt, and bitch, then feel free to do so on the existent pages for those terms (notice that each of those articles already contains at least some mention of this "reclaiming" process). If you'd like to propose a new article on movement to reclaim offensive slang by minority groups or something, go ahead. But please don't think that by hiding behind Derrida and Barthes or words like "inchoate," you can dazzle us into intellectual submission. As Antaeus Feldspar noted, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. "Nig" is derived from "nigger," through the well-established linguistic process of clipping, as Geogre said. Until it achieves fairly widespread use as a distinct word with distinct connotations, nig should be a redirect to nigger. -leigh (φθόγγος) 23:03, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks, leigh. Why does the word have nothing to do with deconstruction? Let's see: 1. It predates the Mai '68 protests that stirred Derrida by, oh, 30 years at least. 2. Derrida's project of deconstruction aims at breaking apart the paradigmatic relationships of words, and "nig" is not extant within a paradigmatic relationship. Further, if one posits that "nigger" and "white" are in an arbitrary power relationship, then use of the word absolutely does nothing to achieve aporia. 3. Barthes's work is about the free play of signifiers. Were our author not blowing smoke and spreading fertilizer, then he might have said that using "nig" for upper middle class Caucasian businessmen would be a free play exercise that would show the flexibility of a text (and what text is it that he thinks is involved?). 4. The word is just a clip. 5. I've actually read the authors whose names he quotes, though I think one of them is useful bunk and the other useful and interesting. Geogre 05:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bogus neologism. EventHorizon 04:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, it is a real form, and quite old too. See the entry for Sylvia Watkins here. Gazpacho
      • Or Google for Harriet E. Wilson's Our Nig (1859). But as has already been said, that is an argument for having nig redirect to nigger (word), not for giving it its own entry about its supposed deconstructionist nature. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Took the words right out of my mouth. FWIW, I noticed WP lacked a Harriet E. Wilson article and created a stub. If you know more than I do, please add what you can. -leigh (φθόγγος) 18:53, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Nig addresses the binary opposition of term and conotation. Consider this: I am clipping a racially insidious term to a more convenient uni-syllabic term. The irony of shortening such a vitriol term for EASIER use establishes a paradigmatic relationship between convention and irony. And this is in-line with Barthes free play of signifiers. In his Mythologies, he addresses a french newspaper photograph in which an african national, dressed in french military garb, salutes a french flag. The reality of his patriotism comes into conflict with the metaphysical concerns of origin and usurping of identity. Signifiers arent relegated to text according to Barthes. Also coniser Baudellard (sp)... face it guys, I'm right. Politically, this entry may be a bit too much, but dont question my understanding of postmodern theory. And as far as May of 1968 is concerned, Derrida himself dismissed time as a factor in assessing the decon. properties of a term. WHat matters is the arbitrary system of differences within the term itself...the history of the term and its metaphysical content is a secondary matter. So dont dare dismiss this entry b/c "nig" is suggested 37 years after the french labor strikes of 68. I may be 20 years old, but dont sully my understanding of this stuff with recycled political pantamines. The term is too hot, too new, i get it.... I still say it should remain as it is... at least as an example of pomo thought. billyvamp4 10:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm not going to debate theory with you. The point is that you said "I am clipping a racially insidious term..." You are the one doing the clipping. You, and (if this isn't some kind of stunt) perhaps some of your acquaintances have begun using this term in a sense which is supposedly distinct from "nigger." It hasn't achieved widespread use, and until it does, it doesn't belong in a global English-language encyclopedia. Moreover, even if it were more common, as in "nigga" (which some have suggested is distinct from "nigger"), they are still all variations on the same word, a word which can have any of several connotations, generally unrelated to spelling or pronunciation differences. Your definition/connotation of "nig" is no different that what many people mean when they say "nigga" or "nigger." As I said above, if you want to report on the ironic "reclaiming" of offensive terms, do so. But work with what we've already established here. If you want to discuss the theoretical implications and your interpretations of that process, then you're really doing original research, and you should find another place to do so. You may want to read What Wikipedia Is Not. Incidentally, the phrase "face it guys, I'm right" has never, in the history of mankind, done anything to convince anyone of the accuracy of the speaker's statements. -leigh (φθόγγος) 12:12, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • We are not disputing your right to do it. We are simply disputing your right to do it here, with our resources and our imprimatur instead of your own. Almost every 'defense' you offer of this entry in fact illustrates why it should not be on Wikipedia -- and that you don't even understand why not. You may understand pomo, but whether you do or not is irrelevant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why is this being debated? This is a dictionary definition and as such does not belong on Wikipedia. Tempshill 21:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I find it terribly humorous that the lot of you reproach me for the phrase "face it, im right" eventhough this entire sequence of entries regarding nig has been nothing more than the wikipedia elite clamoring the line "face it, youre wrong." I was fine, to an extent, with your reservations regarding the term "nig," but some of you broke your own damn covenant and assaulted the theory behind it. Its a bit hypocritical, no? Anyway, I'm nonetheless fond of wikipedia, politics aside and biases aside, so I'll work on an LA metro page...LA metro is a conglomerate of other smaller city transits... confuses the traveller. No nigs or gers or proposed theory on this one. Keep up the stellar work, this site is the most promising thing to happen to the internet since e-mail. billyvamp4 08:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • A) No one used the line "Face it, you're wrong." B) We pointed out specific Wikipedia policies that your entry was in violation of; to describe our response as "nothing more than ... clamoring the line 'face it, youre wrong'" is, to put it bluntly, a lie. When did bald-faced lying become part of postmodernism? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My god youre thick, De Man himself, the premiere postmodern literary critic, poses no objections to "lying." What you have is the text...the text, as barthes states, is nothing more than a collection of terms open to scrutiny. THe actual point of the text doesnt matter, at all. If it did, it would be a body work, one with a central thread of relevance. But were pouring out texts right now, so anything goes. Now, i used the phrase "clamoring...'face it your wrong' " figuratively. You, my friend, did more than restate various wikipedia rules...practically remonstrated my entire effort with some sick political scorn. Now i dropped the issue. Im starting the LA Metro page....get over yourself. billyvamp4 66.171.51.83

No personal attacks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You bloody cunt of a hypocrite.

I'm pretty sure you meant to say "Yo bloo cu of a hyp", since that's so much more pomo. Oh, no need to thank me; I'm thanked enough by the good feeling I get every time I help out a needy halfw who can't find a cl. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect, and save your breath. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 18:54, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

more like Im done with my major...in english and philosophy. I adore how presumptuous the lot of you are, really...I do.

That and a dollar will get you something from the Extra Value Menu. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
By the way, if you want to be taken seriously as a brilliant expert on pomo and not just a garden-variety jerk? Don't vandalize user pages. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nig&oldid=17007798"