Never.
What’s your point?
No, see, we must vote for politicians who say the N word, because if we don’t, theyll figure out that saying the N word hurts them in the poles, so they’ll stop saying the N word allowing them to get elected and enact racist policy.
The only way to stop them from doing this is to elect them while they say the N word.
Well, you are saying that banning words will produce undesirable results, and pointing to an example that you say proves your point.
However, as you just said, you have no example to prove your point, as these words were never banned.
What instead you are pointing to is public disapproval of some words, and how that, in your opinion, led to a winning strategy for the bigots.
So, if your argument has any merit whatsoever, it’s not only that you don’t want these words banned, it’s that you don’t want anyone to express any disapproval over their use.
The bigots can’t win if we’ve already given them everything they want. I mean, it is a strategy.
Perhaps we if we also give them… one mililion dollars?
I believe it is peace for our time… Go home and get a nice quiet sleep
Cite?
The point is how do you (or anyone) suppose this works? On this board the mods can chase down the word and ban someone. But what about its euphemisms? How far do the mods have to police some variant of “you are stupid”? We’ve noted the “euphemism treadmill” above.
I have given examples of how this strategy does not work and, sometimes, can backfire…backfire BIG time.
Are you arguing against me or are you arguing for a better way? If a better way then how does that work?
See Lee Atwater quote above. They did not move away from the n-word because they became enlightened. They moved away because it became a political liability and they changed their messaging.
No, you haven’t. This fact has been pointed out to you, multiple times.
If in the pit, not at all. I think that stupid is an excellent word to describe certain behaviors and those who engage in them. It’s not the fact that the word is used to insult an individual, it’s that it is used to insult large groups of people. That’s what a slur is. I really don’t know how many times this needs to be repeated.
Not really, you have given us the opinion of a racist and white supremacist, and claimed that we should all be beholden to his words.
We are not solving world peace on these boards, we are coming together to have discussions that we hope to find more enjoyable than tiresome. The better way of making these discussions more enjoyable than tiresome is by not tolerating dehumanizing language.
Since you are such a fan of Atwater and cling to his views, are you saying that we should not only not ban slurs against minorities and marginalized groups, we should welcome them? That’s how we fight bigotry?
I’m out. Peace.
So, what you are saying is that moral opprobrium against racists can be inadequate, because they can hide who they are. At least, I think that’s what your anecdote shows. That seems completely orthogonal to whether we should moderate nasty slurs on a message board, honestly.
And of course it is the only way to make participation in SDMB even tolerable for people who are in, or who have personal ties to, the class of people who are dehumanized by use of the slur.
Again, I really couldn’t give a shit about “letting the bigots show us who they are” in the context of this Board. It is of absolutely no consequence whether they leave or whether they repress their deplorable tendencies in order to remain. The priority is that this should be a place that welcomes everyone to the discussion and respects their fundamental human dignity.
Liberals like Martin Bashir cite this interview for the proposition that Republicans skillfully conceal appeals to racism in seemingly innocuous policy discussions. Obviously, Atwater said nothing of the sort. And he declined to agree with Professor Lamis’s suggestion that Reagan’s talk about cutting programs like legal services and food stamps “gets to” the racist side of the George Wallace voter, albeit unconsciously. “I’m not saying it.”… It requires a great deal of dishonesty to twist Atwater’s words into the exact opposite of what he actually said.
I’m really not sure which side you are taking with your “contribution” here, but I will point out that the opinion piece that you use as a cite is not exactly from a balanced source.
Yes, that is true, but I actually listened to the recording in full, and he makes a good point there about context, although I do not agree with the whole article. That famous quote is dragged out of context, screaming and yelling. Context is everything, and the interview was never supposed to go public.
Ah yes, a classic Power Line article: Lee Atwater wasn’t Racist, the Liberals Are!
Some more favorites include Watergate was no Big Deal, BUTTERYMALES!!!
*With perfect timing Christopher Caldwell reviews what we have learned about Watergate in the past 50 years. Caldwell’s First Things essay is titled “Regime change, American style.” The occasion of Caldwell’s essay is the publication of Garrett Graff’s Watergate: A New History .
Caldwell’s essay usefully reminds us that, 50 years later, we still have no idea what the Watergate burglars were looking for. Whatever it was, however, they came away with nothing. In the words of the Dylan song, nothing was delivered. Caldwell quotes Graff on this point:*
What were the burglars actually looking for? Who ordered them into the building? And who on the burglary team knew what? . . . No one was ever charged with ordering the break-in, nor has anyone ever confessed or presented conclusive evidence one direction or another about what the burglars hoped to accomplish that night.
*In terms of substantive harm, no damage was done. If anything, Watergate gave George McGovern something besides Vietnam to talk about in his 1972 presidential campaign. I remember his bringing down the house with his attribution of responsibility for the break-in to Nixon when he campaigned in Minneapolis in the summer of 1972. I was there.
It has been clear for years that the Clinton presidential campaign orchestrated and disseminated the “disinformation” that goes under what I call the Russia hoax
[…]*
At best, it can be seen as claiming that the Reagan campaign didn’t use dog whistles. It certainly cannot be used to claim that there are no dog whistles, or that Atwater was not aware of them from previous Republican campaigns.
Like I said, my major point is that one paragraph is taken totally out of context, read or listen to the WHOLE thing and you will see what I mean.
I am not defending Atwater or that source, but that quote is abused constantly.
An ad hominem argument here. Again, he makes the valid point that that famous quote is taken out of context, and if you read/listen to the whole recording you will see that he is correct there. That does not mean he is generally right, nor does his political leanings mean he is always wrong.