Response To Slurring Words By Luvell Anderson And Ernie Lepore

Noah Marshall
Dr. Ted Shear
PHIL 2490
May 09, 2023
Response To “Slurring Words”

In The article “Slurring Words” Luvell Anderson and Ernie Lepore challenge several content-based accounts of slurs that have been proposed in recent years. They argue that slurs are best understood as prohibited words that are offensive to those whom the prohibition matters. In defense of their position, I will try to explain why it provides a compelling explanation of the phenomenon of slurring in modern language. Before delving into the details of Anderson and Lepore’s argument, it’s necessary to define what we mean by “slurs.” According to Anderson and Lepore, slurs are a class of words that have a peculiar capacity to offend, typically targeting

Some may argue that just because a word may be distasteful or socially unacceptable is it offensive or hateful at all. For example, the N word isn’t offensive because it is prohibited but because of its background and deeply rooted in racism throughout history. I relate this to the way the word “cunt” is no more offensive than any other vulgar insult but as a society it holds more weight to be offensive when said in an interaction with others. They do acknowledge that the semantic content of slurs can contribute to their offensiveness, but they argue that this is not the whole story. They point out that many slurs are not inherently derogatory or negative but become so through their use in particular contexts and communities. For example, the word “queer” used as a slur against gay people but has since been reclaimed and is used by that community as a positive of neutral term. Same way as the “N word” has be reclaimed in some facet by African Americans and can have different connotations depending on the use and who is using the term. Social and moral norms that prohibit slurs are the primary source of their offensiveness, and that the semantic content of slurs is often shaped by these norms. They suggest that the meaning of a slur is not fixed or determined by its linguistic properties, but rather emerges from the social practices and interactions of the community in which it is used. This view is consistent with the idea that language is a social and cultural practice that is deeply imbedded in historical context. Another objection to Anderson and Lepore’s idea is that it seems to treat slurs as arbitrary or conventional, without any connection to the underlying social realities that they reflect. Critics might argue that slurs are offensive not just because they violate social norms, but because they reflect and reinforce the