Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 777

That is a subject that upsets me a lot. I don’t believe in censoring things in context, when it is obvious the context is someone saying what a thing is, not actually “saying” it themselves.

If I hear that someone called someone else a ‘n_____’, and I talk about the incident, I don’t say, “Oh my god, he called that guy an n-word!” No, I say it full out. It’s stupid and dishonest to do otherwise. It reminds me a lot of when Anthony Scaramucci was recorded saying that Steve Bannon sucks his own cock, and then in all the news reporting about it, the reporters tripped all over themselves to avoid saying the word ‘cock’, using all kinds of absurd euphemisms and unclear language so they wouldn’t have to actually repeat it. It was laughably stupid and pathetic to witness. Either repeat the full quote, or only make a reference to offensive language having been used; don’t do this idiotic dance of trying to have it both ways. Just make it clear what the context is, so the use of the word can’t be willfully misunderstood.

In case it isn’t already clear, I absolutely do not condone the use of the word ‘n_____’ in any context other than discussing its use by racists. But I think it’s foolish to go to such lengths to avoid it that even an innocuous reference is treated as being equally appalling as when it is used as a deliberate insult. A while ago, people were trying to censor and/or ban The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because it is used frequently therein. They apparently did not consider that they could explain to anyone who would read the book that it is set in a time and place when it would have been used frequently, and that avoiding this uncomfortable truth ultimately does more harm than trying to erase knowledge of it.

Black people have tried hard to ‘reclaim’ the word by using it to describe themselves and each other. However, given how offensive they still find it if a white person ever says it, even if it’s only in passing and not intended as an insult, it seems clear to me that this has not actually worked. None of the hateful sting has actually been lessened or dulled for them, at least going by what I hear and observe on the subject. Not being black myself, I am well aware that I cannot truly understand what it feels like for them to hear someone say that; and I wouldn’t presume to tell them how they should or should not react when it happens. But given that there has been an unfortunate rise in instances of white people using the word, many of them apparently unaware of the extent of its offensive nature, I think it would probably be best if no one ever said it casually, even black people. With its enormous proliferation in music and other art forms, is it any wonder that white people get confused and start thinking it’s okay for them to say it too? This reclaiming seems to have unfortunately backfired and caused use of the word to become more widespread.

I’m not saying this as a way to ‘blame’ black people for white racism, but the cultural mess we’re in over this subject is most unfortunate. It the responsibility of all people – whites in particular, given our history as oppressors, but nonetheless all people – to approach this subject thoughtfully and in an informed way. Don’t be afraid of something that still is, in the end, just a word; and don’t crucify someone for causing their mouth to emit certain syllables without looking at what they’re actually saying. Context is everything…

The only person explaining the context of the use here is the person who used it (and is potentially trying to save face). We don’t necessarily have the full picture.

There’s a major problem with this article, though I don’t blame it for not having information it might not have access to: We only have the memo about him using the word; we don’t have a transcript of the meeting to provide context.

It’s impossible for us, on the outside looking in, to make a judgement call when we lack the full story. Maybe he said it in an appropriate context and this is overreaction. Maybe he used it inappropriately during said meeting. What little we have of it seems to imply (to me, at least) that Mr. Friedland used it in reference to his black employees, or directed at them, but like I said just a moment ago, it’s hard to say. We have too little context.

EDIT: Beat me to it, Mr. Cobb.

flametitan said:

There’s a major problem with this article, though I don’t blame it for not having information it might not have access to: We only have the memo about him using the word; we don’t have a transcript of the meeting to provide context.

It’s impossible for us, on the outside looking in, to make a judgement call when we lack the full story. Maybe he said it in an appropriate context and this is overreaction. Maybe he used it inappropriately during said meeting. What little we have of it seems to imply (to me, at least) that Mr. Friedland used it in reference to his black employees, or directed at them, but like I said just a moment ago, it’s hard to say. We have too little context.

EDIT: Beat me to it, Mr. Cobb.

It’s fine, you said it better.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Don’t some Tarantino movies have several mentions of the word? And he’s still a Film Bro Favorite, so I doubt it.

I can’t think of a movie of his without the word! Django Unchained uses it 110 times! It’s just most of his movies take place in olden times or in a dirty crime world, so it’s not unexpected for the word to be used. I have seen people accuse Tarantino of being racist though.

Post Praetorian said:

It would seem, on the whole, that the longer one allows words to retain negative power, the less progress society seemingly has made in overcoming its past…or, from another view, is not the continued giving to an opponent the absolute power of knowing precisely which words will reduce one to emotional ruin necessarily providing said rival unnecessary strength and credibility at each outcry of its usage? For imagine an instance in which an American at large might be considered to be so emotionally slain by use of some specific epithet (Yankee, or perhaps more considerately phrased as the “Y” word, for instance) that it assumes an overwhelming and unjustifiable weight: would such a society truly be ameliorated by encouraging each successive generation to yet quail at the very nearness of the word so that an opposing nation might use it with impunity and redundancy to detrimental effect? Or might it not be an improved situation to teach, instead of fear, horror, and outrage of the word, the patent absurdity of reacting in any given fashion to any mere arrangement of letters…? For most certainly a word may retain emotional weight, but how is it best to deprive it of same? Is it to encourage all to view it at its greatest weight…consistently and repeatedly underlining its ability to wound and cause irreparable harm…? Or is it perhaps an improvement to strive at all turns to instead merely trivialize those who might consider it to be yet potent in light of today’s more reasonable era?

I’d be interested in hearing you say this to the NAACP and the ensuing conversation.

To clarify, if a word were to be used against my children that appeared to cause them abject misery due to its ability to recall to them their cultural suffering at the hands of some previous power, it would seem to me to be bad policy to encourage them to feel outrage and to stagger into the field of battle,

If you ask me, it is bad policy for someone to deliberately use a word with the intent of causing them abject misery due the word’s ability to recall cultural suffering.

already so wounded, demanding an apology (thereby greatly exaggerating the hurt being afflicted and thereby delivering themselves directly into the power of the bully at hand)

I see nothing wrong with demanding an apology from someone that tries to insult you(to be clear, I am not saying that is was the guy from netflix did).

…it would seem instead a more plausible escape from the past to derail the significance of the word itself and to teach my children to laugh at each and every instance of same…stripping it of its power, removing any desire for an opponent to use it for fear that they will merely be laughed at and labeled a fool rather than being labeled a victor over another’s emotional stability…

I also think the bully/name caller should be taught a lesson too.

I get kind of upset when we concentrate on how the bullied should react to the bully and as opposed to how the bully should have acted in the first place. To be clear I get upset, because I was once the bullied and instead of just simply stopping the bullies the punishing them, it seems like they wanted to concentrate more on how I reacted to them.

hairy_hen said:

That is a subject that upsets me a lot. I don’t believe in censoring things in context, when it is obvious the context is someone saying what a thing is, not actually “saying” it themselves.

If I hear that someone called someone else a ‘n_____’, and I talk about the incident, I don’t say, “Oh my god, he called that guy an n-word!” No, I say it full out. It’s stupid and dishonest to do otherwise.

Why? Why do you have to say the full word? Why is it dishonest to say “he called that guy an n-word”? Everyone knows what you mean by “n-wood”

It reminds me a lot of when Anthony Scaramucci was recorded saying that Steve Bannon sucks his own cock, and then in all the news reporting about it, the reporters tripped all over themselves to avoid saying the word ‘cock’, using all kinds of absurd euphemisms and unclear language so they wouldn’t have to actually repeat it. It was laughably stupid and pathetic to witness. Either repeat the full quote, or only make a reference to offensive language having been used; don’t do this idiotic dance of trying to have it both ways. Just make it clear what the context is, so the use of the word can’t be willfully misunderstood.

If you just say “he used offensive language”, it leaves things unclear. People may interpret that to mean he used a racial slur or something. “offensive language” can mean a whole lot of different things. Saying “he used an offensive word for the male anatomy” or something like that is much more precise. As for why not to say the word outright, there are times and where it is widely accepted that you do not curse or at least watch your language. There are times when kids could be watching. Some people when listening to the news, don’t want to hear the bad language like “cock”.

In case it isn’t already clear, I absolutely do not condone the use of the word ‘n_____’ in any context other than discussing its use by racists.

What about saying it when playing a racist character, in something like Roots?

moviefreakedmind said:

Saying the “n-word” instead of n_____ when you’re referring to the word is childish and pathetic.

If you say so.

Jay said:

I’d prefer not to be the Star Wars web site that achieves notoriety for its members’ open use of that word, especially given the current climate. I also don’t want our site to trigger workplace content filters or get cached in search engine results with that content.

Please refrain from using it in the future. We have a pretty lax policy regarding “bad words” here, but sometimes decorum takes precedence over freedom of speech.

You’re just putting the kibosh on saying the word outright, correct? The discussion we are having is still okay right? and saying “n-word” and “n_____” is okay right?

hairy_hen said:

Black people have tried hard to ‘reclaim’ the word by using it to describe themselves and each other. However, given how offensive they still find it if a white person ever says it, even if it’s only in passing and not intended as an insult, it seems clear to me that this has not actually worked. None of the hateful sting has actually been lessened or dulled for them, at least going by what I hear and observe on the subject. Not being black myself, I am well aware that I cannot truly understand what it feels like for them to hear someone say that; and I wouldn’t presume to tell them how they should or should not react when it happens. But given that there has been an unfortunate rise in instances of white people using the word, many of them apparently unaware of the extent of its offensive nature, I think it would probably be best if no one ever said it casually, even black people. With its enormous proliferation in music and other art forms, is it any wonder that white people get confused and start thinking it’s okay for them to say it too? This reclaiming seems to have unfortunately backfired and caused use of the word to become more widespread.

As someone who belongs to at least one community with reclaimed slurs, perhaps I can explain the edifice of the apparent conundrum. Note that these opinions represent my own, and I do not speak for any minority group as a whole, not even those I belong to.

The biggest problems arise from context. Even if the group reclaiming it does manage to find use for it in a neutral, or even complimentary tone, the word’s primary use outside of the community is pejorative. That said, one outside the community using the word isn’t necessarily using it for evil; I don’t automatically hate my cisgender friends if they refer to me by certain terms, as I can trust them to respect who I am and stand up for me. However, I automatically get suspicious of somebody who I don’t know or know little about using those same terms, as it either means they think they’re closer to me than we actually are, they’re ignorant about the term, or doing it to insult or otherwise bring harm to me. While the truth is usually one of the former two options, the latter is oftentimes safer to assume.

At the same time, on the other end of the spectrum, there are those from within the community who will still use a term in a pejorative way, whether out of self loathing, contempt for certain “lesser” parts of it, or as part of trying to appease certain ideologies they’ve decided to side with. On top of that, there are those who find discomfort in the word, regardless of who said it, or why. In short, whether or not a reclaimed slur is acceptable to use comes down to how well you can read the room.

As for mass media, like the music industry? This is where it gets a bit more messy, and where it becomes even more conjecture from me. On the one hand, yes, like you said, a lot of this music gets consumed by those outside of the community it comes from. Some of it is written by people outside of the community it comes from. However, a number of these songs (I can’t honestly say how much; I don’t really listen to pop media, and it probably also depends on the community in question) is presumably written by members of the community, for members of that community. This alone can change the context for those listening, though people outside the community might not immediately realize it. Of course, if the person listening to the song doesn’t realize this shift in context, it might make them think certain things are acceptable for them to do, even if it actually isn’t.

(And then there’s the question of how much does the media actually change our perception of things, with examples and counter examples flying every which way, and I won’t go into that.)

TL;DR: How much a word is “reclaimed,” and how offended the recipient is depends a lot on the context of who’s saying it, who’s listening, why is the term being used…

And as a reminder to my post that I feel got ignored: We lack the full context over what happened that led to this guy being fired. We only have the roughest silhouettes of the story.

Post Praetorian said:

Warbler said:

Post Praetorian said:

It would seem, on the whole, that the longer one allows words to retain negative power, the less progress society seemingly has made in overcoming its past…or, from another view, is not the continued giving to an opponent the absolute power of knowing precisely which words will reduce one to emotional ruin necessarily providing said rival unnecessary strength and credibility at each outcry of its usage? For imagine an instance in which an American at large might be considered to be so emotionally slain by use of some specific epithet (Yankee, or perhaps more considerately phrased as the “Y” word, for instance) that it assumes an overwhelming and unjustifiable weight: would such a society truly be ameliorated by encouraging each successive generation to yet quail at the very nearness of the word so that an opposing nation might use it with impunity and redundancy to detrimental effect? Or might it not be an improved situation to teach, instead of fear, horror, and outrage of the word, the patent absurdity of reacting in any given fashion to any mere arrangement of letters…? For most certainly a word may retain emotional weight, but how is it best to deprive it of same? Is it to encourage all to view it at its greatest weight…consistently and repeatedly underlining its ability to wound and cause irreparable harm…? Or is it perhaps an improvement to strive at all turns to instead merely trivialize those who might consider it to be yet potent in light of today’s more reasonable era?

I’d be interested in hearing you say this to the NAACP and the ensuing conversation.

If said organization is comprised of reasonable individuals with a true aim of overcoming perpetual victim-hood, then would not any such possible conversation be received in a generally positive light?

I don’t think it would be received in a positive light by the NAACP.

To clarify, if a word were to be used against my children that appeared to cause them abject misery due to its ability to recall to them their cultural suffering at the hands of some previous power, it would seem to me to be bad policy to encourage them to feel outrage and to stagger into the field of battle,

If you ask me, it is bad policy for someone to deliberately use a word with the intent of causing them abject misery due the word’s ability to recall cultural suffering.

Is it not equally bad policy for one to steal…?

yes.

And yet who among us would then consider the individual who has left his key in his front door on successive evenings in order to save time to be truly wise?

Somehow, I can’t equate leaving the key in the door with considering the n-word insulting.

Words hurt. We can pretend they don’t, sometimes that may be a good strategy(and some aren’t as good playing it as others), but words can still hurt.

For while it is fair to condemn the aggressor, do not forget that the one over whom one actually has reasonable control is oneself in a general sense. The advice is provided in order to alleviate the potential for shots fired to find their mark…for is not a soldier who is given armour in a better position to resist the piercing of an arrow than is one given only the advice to shout repeatedly at the enemy to cease firing…?

One can condemn the aggressor and give the advice you suggest.

One can give the soldier armor and give the soldier a gun to shoot the guy firing at him.

already so wounded, demanding an apology (thereby greatly exaggerating the hurt being afflicted and thereby delivering themselves directly into the power of the bully at hand)

I see nothing wrong with demanding an apology from someone that tries to insult you(to be clear, I am not saying that is was the guy from netflix did).

Which is the stronger position:

1. To demand an apology by admitting what was said was indeed hurtful, explaining both the depth of the wound and its long-lasting effect?

2. Or to look up in amusement/surprise/disappointment at the would-be assailant and shake one’s head at the futility of the attack?

I don’t know, maybe #2 but I still think the person is entitled to an apology.

In which instance has the assailant most properly landed his attack? In which instance does the victim remain so? In which instance has the assailant been affirmed in his/her position of strength? In which instance have all other would-be assailants learned any form of lesson?

Sometimes assailants can learn from being punished.

…it would seem instead a more plausible escape from the past to derail the significance of the word itself and to teach my children to laugh at each and every instance of same…stripping it of its power, removing any desire for an opponent to use it for fear that they will merely be laughed at and labeled a fool rather than being labeled a victor over another’s emotional stability…

I also think the bully/name caller should be taught a lesson too.

Agreed…yet what should that lesson properly contain? Is the bully to be affirmed in his position of dominance?

If I had had the ability, I would have kicked the bullies’ asses. If I had been able to do, I don’t think they would have been able to maintain a position of dominance afterwards.

Or is he to be instead ridiculed for his provable lack of power?

I sucked at trying the strategy you suggest.

For in an instance in which a bully might truly hate enough to call out a racial slur, expecting a given reaction and thereby reaffirming his sense of dominance, in which instance is his supposed superiority more clearly underlined? In a situation in which his words wound, or in one in which they fall flat?

What about a situation where the bully gets his teeth broken? What about a situation where those in the authority properly punish the bully?

I get kind of upset when we concentrate on how the bullied should react to the bully and as opposed to how the bully should have acted in the first place. To be clear I get upset, because I was once the bullied and instead of just simply stopping the bullies the punishing them, it seems like they wanted to concentrate more on how I reacted to them.

It is understood that those who have been bullied would have the experience and qualification to offer true empathy to any other perceived victims…yet if one knew that a bully thrived on achieving a given reaction from his victims, would one not at least caution them to avoid providing that off which their oppressor is logically feeding?

Sure one could caution the bullied, but one can all punish the bully(or kick his ass)

For even though a response from all by-standers to act in support of the victims by turning bully to the bully at each perceived instance is indeed one measure of a solution, is not an improved version one in which the victims themselves simply cease to be so permanently…?

Like I said, I sucked at ceasing on my own. And again words hurt.

For me the only way the bullying would have stopped if the adults around me had stopped the bullies.

For in which instance is the lie of the bully more glaring and obvious? The one in which the victims might yet act wounded and defeated, whilst outwardly protected by their allies…or the one in which they might find the bully to be merely an object of pity rather than that of oppression?

1. I was never able to pity those that bullied me. I just couldn’t.
2. I don’t know which would have made the lie of the bully more glaring and obvious. I just know the bully shouldn’t be bullying and when he does he should be punished(or have his ass kicked).

moviefreakedmind said:

The only way to stop a bully is to violently assault the bully.

No, there are other ways. Maybe the strategy Post Praetorian suggests could be employed by those capable of doing it, but not all are good at it. Another way is for those in legitimate authority to stop them(legitimate punishment, etc).