uttered by ethnic minorities who are typically impacted by the word ?
In response to this objection , it should be noted that Hom ’ s explanation of intra-ethnic use of slurs is clearly pragmatic , as Hom argues that the epithet itself becomes nonderogatory in certain contexts . As explained above , Hom argues that in the specific case of intra-ethnic use of slurs , that this is not derogatory , and instead is used to “ bring members of a group together and to remind members of the targeted group , that they are indeed a targeted group ” ( 2008 , p . 438 ). However , Hom maintains that the epithets still contain some derogatory power , since they “ are not entirely dissolved [ of their derogatory power ]” ( ibid .). If Hom maintains that racial epithets are derogatory “ regardless of the attitudes of a particular speaker ” ( ibid , p . 426 ) yet they are also used in a nonderogatory context simultaneously , this overcomplicates the use of slurs within an intraethnic context . Rather , Fregean minimalism provides a much simpler explanation , by showing that appropriation of epithets by groups targeted by them is the intentional change of colouring of a slur , rather than an attempt to “ desensitize ” and “ toughen up ” ethnic minorities ( ibid ., p . 428 ). In the example of Tupac , which Hom uses , Tupac ’ s use of the
131
racial epithet ‘ n *** er ’ or ‘ ni ** a ’ is clearly Tupac ’ s attempt to infer in the speaker ’ s mind an inoffensive association between Black people as the reference , and ‘ n *** ers ’ as the sense . Christopher Hitchens explained this phenomena of appropriation without reference to Fregean minimalism when he argued that , “ If White people call Black people n *** ers , they are doing their very best to hurt and insult them , as well as remind them that their ancestors used to be property . If Black people use the word , they are uttering an obscenity or trying to detoxify a word and rob its power to wound them ,” ( Hitchens , 2012 , p . 709 ). My argument , therefore is not that Hom ’ s explanation is wrong , but that it is pragmatic and overcomplicates the phenomena of appropriation , which Fregean minimalism explains much more succinctly .
In conclusion , Fregean minimalism provides a way of understanding racial epithets which explains that the offence caused by the use of epithets is due to the colouring of the epithet combined with the speaker ’ s intent . Applying this theory , I have argued that limits should only be placed on the use of racial epithets when the colouring is intentionally offensive . I have also argued against the objection that Fregean minimalism does