So we should never watch Blazing Saddles again, because we’re condoning terrorism, Nazism, and who knows what else?
One of the reasons I Pitted asahi is that ‘the Negro’ carries additional meanings that ‘Negro’ by itself doesn’t. It’s a phrase that, back when it was in more common circulation 50+ years ago, was extremely condescending and paternalistic on its best days.
I’m not trying to fool anyone - hence the discussion here in this thread. Not sure why I would need to fool anyone about anything. Look, if we wanted to ban asahi, it could and would have already been done. I continue to think that asahi can be a valuable contributor to the board. At times he posts some pretty inflammatory things and needs a reminder to rein it in. But most times, even though we disagree on many things, he contributes to the reasoned discourse we can have on the boards. So no, I’m not trying to fool anyone.
Suffice to say we’re not going to re-adjudicate long ago actions. Given the time span, change in moderation team, change in lots of other things, views and interpretations are not static.
I wouldn’t be. I suppose that’s part of the disagreement. For example, Huey was a racist. I would not allow him to be called “the negro”. In discussions about affirmative action, I would not allow those against affirmative action to characterize those in favor of the program as wanting to help “the negro”. In talking about Harvard’s admission policies, I would not allow those opposed to it to characterize those who support Harvard as being unfair to “the chinaman”. When discussing disparate impact, I would not allow the practice to be described as helping “the negro”.
That’s the consequence of allowing this type of usage and I’m not in favor of it.
Former black? What are they now? :eek::eek:
Much as I’d love to endorse messing with octopus, the ambiguity isn’t really there - that would be formerly black.
I’m trying to digest how I feel about this, but may I ask - I hope under this reasoning the following far more reprehensible post would be insta-warned, even in the Pit:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21423031&postcount=61
Huey used the same reprehensible & divisive rhetorical technique, and although it was the Pit he used the far more offensive epithet, which if used non-rhetorically is obviously not allowed anywhere on the board. It was the same game - putting the word in the mouths of people who haven’t used it, and in this case other SDMB posters (albeit unspecified).
(Obviously I’m not disputing Huey’s moderation retrospectively, he was banned and this post likely contributed to the ban, I just wanted clarification on the issue.)
I started this thread/reading fine with the warning but I’m coming more into the “note camp” as it goes on. Partly it is asashi’s attitude but mostly from some of the other points brought out by posters and Mods alike. Yeah, it wasn’t a great post and there has been some recent history from him (?) as a poster but given a couple of the other bans maybe it was a little over-reaction from the Mods as well. Just maybe.
He made a valid point about Northam being your typical elite Dem. No need for a warning.
That’s enough, Will. This is not the thread for partisan shots. Restrain yourself.
As always, both context and location is everything. Such a post would certainly attract moderator attention in GD - at least it would attract my attention - but The Pit is a different place and Miller has the discretion to make his own decisions there.
Would it be less condescending and paternalistic if he’d said "My African American "?
That’s pretty much the modus operandi of SNL & I think it’s extremely effective.
I’m no fan of asahi, but it was obvious to me he was mocking the senator, and his posting history shows that he despises racists. I don’t see how Bone thought he was promoting racism when he clearly doesn’t subscribe to it.
If asahi had used more offensive vocabulary, I’d agree with this argument. And in any event I always endorsed the Pitting, because (like LHoD) I hate the underhand rhetorical device of putting specific pejorative words into other people’s mouths to denigrate them. But when the vocabulary involved isn’t seriously offensive hate speech, I have trouble seeing sarcastic rhetoric as a violation, any more than the myriad other ways to lower the level of discourse.
One can imagine contexts where perfectly reasonable commentary/rhetoric introduces the word “negro” (whereas explicitly stating the more offensive n-word would certainly not be acceptable). Suppose a hypothetical old white Southern politician had recently expressed dubious and anachronistic views on race, one might say something like:
Would that be disallowed by your reasoning? I think the meaning is essentially identical to what asahi said via sarcastic rhetoric. To my mind pitting (but not the Warning) was justified because asahi was simply being unfair and prejudicial in saying it about Northam given what we know so far.
I guess I just don’t buy the idea that a goal of holding the line on sneaky sinister use of a word like “negro” justifies simply banning all such rhetoric. I don’t think it’s really that hard to tell the difference.
You do get the difference between all of those and what asahi did, right? He was satirising exactly such statements/thinking as in your examples.
You’re not in favour of satire? Becauseyou have trouble distinguishing between genuine satire and stealth actual behaviour, is that why?
I agree fully. I don’t necessarily support bannings or even warnings for it, but I agree that throwing a sucker punch from left field in GD and attributing the worst possible motive, even for a public figure, is not a good debating tactic and not conducive to the level of discourse that separates this board from any of the other garbage on the internet.
I also agree fully. This was never the board policy before and although I would support the change, it is only fair to announce the new policy, linking asahi’s post if necessary before handing out warnings for it.
A few people asked me why I thought asahi was trolling - in this case, being inflammatory to incite reaction.
His quote:
Given other things he has posted, including the line in my sig, over-the-top, hysterically histrionic statements are his norm lately.
Bone said this:
I agree with most of it. Do I think that asahi uses the term “the Negro” as hate speech? No. Do I think he used it here to rile folks up? Yes. In fact, I took it to mean that asahi believes that not only does Northam believe this, but so do all other white folks. I grant you that I come to this interpretation based on his behavior in the Huey threads. I can’t know asahi’s intentions, obviously, but I can judge them by his past conduct. Given his behavior, it’s hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Such was my thinking. Trolling yes, hate speech no.
If the mods want to change this to a note, with an acknowledgement that times are changing, I would endorse that as well.
Question for the mods:
In other words, if the poster makes it very obvious that the thoughts in question “come from” Northam, is that acceptable? Or is the ruling that we can’t put objectionable thought into the mouths of others?
I think that asahi’s post was merely sarcasm, not hate speech or trolling. At least, it’s not trolling yet. If he (?) made a whole bunch of post like that, that’d be a different matter. To the best of my knowledge, though, that was a one-off.
As to the slippery slope, the mods are smart people on a smart board. They can tell when someone’s intentionally pushing buttons to annoy or harass and when they’re not. This was a case of not, I think.
Actually, the odd thing was that you said “I took him to be completely serious in what he was saying”. Which I (reasonably I think) took to mean that you thought he wasn’t being sarcastic/ironic, as was obvious to everyone else.
And honestly, I’m still not sure what you meant/mean, based on the rest of your post.
I’m still confused about where you’re coming from. It was already very obvious that asahi was parodying Northam’s thoughts, without your blue edits. I don’t think that’s in dispute, I think it’s already being moderated on that basis.
What other interpretation is possible, unless you circle back to the idea that asahi was unironically expressing his own thoughts on “the Negro” - which is ridiculous to anyone who knows asahi. (And would contradict his earlier posts even in that thread to someone less familiar with him.)
This is part of the disagreement then. I find it pretty offensive in the manner it was used.
I just looked and the term has been used 87 times in GD and 44 times in Elections since I became a mod. Of those instances, the vast majority are referring to or quoting historical contexts, or actually quoting people. Of those, 5, and 6 instances respectively, were used in other ways. Not all or not even most were reported.
During this same time period, 14 usages of the word have been reported across all forums. The results were: 1 person banned (for other reasons), 1 person warned, 4 spam, 4 historical use in context and mostly forum move report, 1 use in GQ describing census like question, 1 troll/sock that was banned, 1 thread closed because it was misplaced. 1 thread of fairly extensive use but mostly mockery.
The point is, it doesn’t come up that much because it’s in my view, fairly widely known to be at best anachronistic. At worst, pretty racist. If asahi had used the n-word instead of “negro”, would that change anyone’s view? If so, then the defense of satire, or characterizing Northam’s thoughts is hollow - because if those defenses hold up, then it should be able to be used to shield any manner of hate speech.
Responding to both of the portions above. It need not be sneaky and satire is in the eye of the beholder. For example: [ul]
[li]“Leftists are in favor of Affirmative Action because they are paternal racists trying to help the negros.”[/li][li]“The main reason Democrats are opposed to school choice is because they think it will harm the negros left behind.” [/li][li]“The reason why those on the left support disparate impact analysis is because they believe the negros are inferior and the only way to normalize outcomes is to put their thumb on the scale.”[/li][/ul]
Satire right?
The thing is, it’s easy to convey a similar message or make a the same debate point without this type of unnecessarily inflammatory language. Choosing to inflame in that manner, is what crossed the line into trolling for me. And most certainly, recent posting behavior played a part in that evaluation. If asahi had only ever posted as he has done in this thread, I would probably have left it only a note.
No. Notice that you say “negro” and the n-word. One of those words you’re willing to type; the other you’re not.
The n-word is so profoundly toxic that, even in discussing its use as hypothetical hate speech, you won’t type it.
Had he used it directly, its toxicity would change my opinion of what he did. But if he literally had said, “Northam protected the n-word from the Republican party’s racism; therefore, people should be grateful,” it’d be more confusing than anything else.