Explore the vast range of titles available.

The present paper seeks to investigate the representation of a relevant number of gendered epithets in two prominent Romanian dictionaries, the most recent edition of DOOM (2021, Third Edition) and the current edition of DEX (2016, Revised Edition based on the first and second editions). Taking into account the prescriptive dimension which both these dictionaries share and the fact that they both retain their status as significant reference books in present-day Romania, the paper examines the way in which these current dictionaries choose to describe these words, arguing for the significance of the “metadata” (Nunberg, 2018; Pullum, 2018) component in the lexicographical representation of lexical items which can function as gendered insults.

Este artículo busca proporcionar una descripción completa y fundamental de por qué los epítetos raciales y slurs similares son inmora-les, allá donde lo sean. Considera tres teorías prin-cipales, según las cuales, a grandes rasgos, son inmorales porque son dañinos (bienestarismo), porque socavan la autonomía (kantianismo) o porque son hostiles (un enfoque relacional poco discutido informado por ideas del Sur Glo-bal). Este artículo presenta nuevas objeciones a las dos primeras teorías y concluye a favor de la última justificación. Se muestra que considerar que los slurs son inmorales en la medida en que son hostiles captura las ventajas de las otras teo-rías evitando sus desventajas. This article seeks to provide a comprehensive and fundamental account of why racial epithets and similar slurs are immoral, whenever they are. It considers three major theories, roughly according to which they are immoral because they are harmful (welfarism), because they undermine autonomy (Kantianism), or because they are unfriendly (an under-considered, relational approach informed by ideas from the Global South). This article presents new objections to the former two theories, and concludes in favour of the latter rationale. Deeming slurs to be wrong insofar as they are unfriendly is shown to capture the advantages of the other theories, while avoiding their disadvantages.

The book of Revelation is resoundingly theocentric and intensively monotheistic from first to last. The presence and person of God the Father permeates and punctuates the vision at every turn as the central character orchestrating all things according to his purposes. This theocentric character of the Apocalypse, however, is often overshadowed by its extremely pronounced Christology. One possible reason is because John does not consign Christology to a separate category of theology. But from the very outset God is unambiguously identified as the ultimate sovereign ruler of the universe. Revelation attributes a functional distinction between Father and Son, but they equally receive worship and are ascribed as worthy of worship.

Aḍud al-Dawla is considered one of the most prominent rulers of the Buyid dynasty due to the rare combination of qualities he possessed—qualities seldom found in a single individual. When the Buyid state is mentioned, ʿAḍud al-Dawla stands at the forefront of its kings because of his political, economic, architectural, scientific, and literary achievements. The greatness of the Buyid state was epitomized by its ruler, ʿAḍud al-Dawla. He was known for his strength and for being resolute and strict in matters that affected him personally or related to the security of his kingdom—he would never show leniency in such cases, handling them with determination and firmness. However, he was tolerant and gracious toward scholars and men of letters. The study includes an introduction, a preface, and a brief overview of ʿAḍud al-Dawla’s early political life. It encompasses his full name, titles, lineage, and epithets, as well as his most notable traits and the opinions of historians, as well as with insights from his contemporaries, including scholars, poets, and jurists. It also addresses the circumstances of his death. The study adopts the historical method by collecting information about the views of historians and their contemporaries, followed by an analysis to understand their impact on the intellectual and scientific spheres.  

Racial epithets are derogatory expressions, understood to convey contempt and hatred toward their targets. There are two competing strategies for explaining how epithets work, one semantic and the other pragmatic. According to the semantic strategy, their derogatory content is fundamentally part of their literal meaning, and thus gets expressed in every context of utterance. According to the pragmatic strategy, their derogatory content is fundamentally part of how they are used, and results from features of the individual contexts surrounding their utterance. Here, Hom stresses that neither view is without difficulty, although to many the pragmatic strategy is prima facie more attractive. He argues that the semantic strategy actually fares better on a number of criteria. In so doing, he actuates a particular semanic account of epithets that he calls combinatorial externalism, an account that has significant implications on theoretical, as well as, practical dimensions.

Studies conducted between the 1950s and 1970s found that the principles embodied in the First Amendment constituted a “clear norm” endorsed by large majorities of community leaders and virtually all legal practitioners and scholars. This consensus has since weakened under the strain of arguments that racist slurs, epithets, and other forms of expression that demean social identities are an intolerable affront to egalitarian values. Guided by the theory that norms are transmitted through social learning, we show that these developments have spurred a dramatic realignment in public tolerance of offensive expression about race, gender, and religious groups. Tolerance of such speech has declined overall, and its traditional relationships with ideology, education, and age have diminished or reversed. Speech subject to changing norms of tolerance ranges from polemic to scientific inquiry, the fringes to the mainstream of political discourse, and left to right, raising profound questions about the scope of permissible debate in contemporary American politics.

Sociologists empirically and theoretically neglect genocide. In this article, our critical collective framing perspective begins by focusing on state origins of race-based ideology in the mobilization and dehumanization leading to genocide. We elaborate this transformative dynamic by identifying racially driven macro-micro-macro-level processes that are theoretically underdeveloped and contested in many settings. We investigate generic processes by exploiting an unprecedented survey of refugees from the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Our focus is on the Sudanese government's crisis framing of a dehumanizing collective process. Sudanese forces joined with Janjaweed militia to attack black African settlements. They aggregated and concentrated racial epithets in a collective process of dehumanization and organized terror, which amplified the severity of genocidal victimization, the lethal and lasting scar of the genocidal state. Our findings question primordial and counter-insurgency explanations, while supporting aspects of the instrumental, population-resource, constructionist, and cognitive perspectives that form the foundation of our critical collective framing perspective. It has been more than 50 years since Sutherland famously added white-collar crime to public sociology, radically reordering discourse about crime. It is time to do the same with Raphael Lemkin's concept of genocide.