Analysis Of Doug Baldwin's Argument For Banning The N-Language

In attempts to remove discriminatory language in the workplace the National Football league (NFL) decided to ban the use of the n-word for any player on the field. In response to the NFL ban of the n-word Doug Baldwin, a wide receiver for the Seahawks, defended the use of the word using personalistic ideology to illustrate his stance on the matter. Jane Hill shares that this ideology, “holds that the most important part of linguistic meaning comes from the beliefs and intentions of the speaker..” (Rosaldo 1981). This can be seen with his insistence that the n-word should not be banned as he has personally never ,“heard the word used as a racial slur and only heard it used from one black player to another”(Smith, 2014). This argument emphasizes

He argues that banning the N-word would be unfair and discriminatory because it would only target one particular word used by one particular group. Instead, he suggested that all offensive language should be banned, reflecting the view that justice should be based on individual circumstances and relationships rather than abstract principles. Overall, Baldwin’s argument against the proposed ban on the N-word reflects a personalistic ideology that emphasizes individual experience, personal relationships, and individualized justice. While his argument was criticized by some as misguided or insensitive, it highlights the importance of understanding and engaging with diverse perspectives and experiences in discussions about race and discrimination in sports and society at

With Referentialism and Baptismal ideologies being the most prominent. Referentialism is the belief that the meaning of words is derived from their reference to the world, while Baptismal ideology is the belief that the meaning of words is assigned by a person or group of people, often based on their intentions or use. One user said, “... Regardless of who uses the N word or not, it’s not the only offensive language being said. Targeting one word isn’t going to help unless you include everything else offensive players say. And the penalty is also way too severe, giving more power to the refs to dictate the way games are being played and how bad they are officiated”(NBC Sports, 2014). This comment shows a combination of Referentialism and Baptismal ideology. The user essentially agrees with Baldwin's point that banning one particular word is not effective in reducing offensive language and instead all offensive language should be banned. This implies that the meaning of words is derived from their reference to something offensive. Additionally, the user argues that the power to dictate what language is offensive should not be solely in the hands of referees, suggesting that the meaning of words is assigned by a group of people, rather than being inherent in the word itself. A different user shares , “Sorry Doug, with the history behind that name it can never be a term of endearment no matter