Well stated, and I agree.
Wisdom lies in knowing when it is one of those times – not just here in an online playground but out there in the Real World.
Everyone on this board can cite hundreds of threads on dozens of topics where sarcasm and irony were completely missed by some or all of the posters in the thread. Claiming one was only being sarcastic or speaking ironically will result in arguments breaking out everywhere.
That is still my problem. I just don’t see what allowing ironic use provides that is worth the obvious headache of leaving this loophole in place.
There are too many stories of the white guy who wants to find the way to use the n-word. And how society as a whole is at the point that we just don’t allow those loopholes. (At least, in the US.)
I think the SDMB is behind the times on this. I respect the apparent consensus, but I suspect this will change if the site continues on.
At minimum, I wish the rule would be that “if we can’t tell 100% that it is ironic, it will not be allowed.”
Oh, and I’d never make a new thread just to talk to a single person. Private message them. The software even makes it easy. Click the flag to report them, but then choose the option to send them a message instead.
Unless you want a debate or poll or something. I’m personally thinking about making a poll about people’s opinions on ironic use of the n-word.
I’m not sure if I should give the topic breathing room for a bit though, letting it be less connected to this particular post.
A few weeks ago, I made this post in the “share a random fact you stumbled across” thread. I was shocked and appalled to learn that the U.S. government, early in the second half of the 20th century, had carried out a project bluntly called “Operation (racial slur).” And yet, despite this being objectively horrifying, it’s also extremely interesting and thought-provoking, for multiple reasons, so I knew it would be worth sharing.
Nevertheless, I did not want to share a page link that displayed the slur, even though the name of the operation is simple historical fact, because I knew it would surprise readers not expecting to see it baldly written, and had the potential to create discomfort in some. I searched around for a bit, and I found a page whose title and preview didn’t include the slur, making it safe, in my view, for sharing. I included a caution about the content, giving a general warning about what you’d see if you visited the link, and I made my post.
The slur is, unquestionably, a form of hate speech when wielded hurtfully. I would argue that it is not hate speech in the context of the neutral informational page I shared; it’s a historical attribution, a report about actual events that doesn’t water down the (awful) reality.
And, to the point of the current discussion, I’m struck by a certain semantic equivalence between someone writing (for attributive purposes) an obfuscated slur like “n-word” or “n——” or similar, and my sharing of the link. In the former case, the slur is not explicitly represented; it’s hidden behind a euphemism, and an implicit further step is required (specifically, the interpretation of the reader) to “reveal” the offensive word. Similarly, I did not present the slur; it’s “hidden” behind a link, and a further step, a click, is required to reveal it. But I certainly made it possible for that slur to appear in the reader’s mind, in a somewhat analogous fashion to the obfuscated euphemism.
In an environment with an apparent bright-line rule, would my sharing of the link qualify as a violation? I brought a racial slur to the discussion. I did not, myself, make any kind of expression in support of racist hate, and the slur was veiled, presented indirectly; but it was absolutely there. So, if the proposed rule were in place, should I have been modded?
Now, to be clear, I don’t expect an answer here. I’m not asking this out of any serious concern about whether or not this breaks an actual or hypothetical rule. Instead, I’m using this to illustrate two points: First, there are absolutely cases where attributive usage like mine wouldn’t trip any flags. Nobody pitted me, nobody replied to my post. I obviously don’t know if anyone added a flag, but if they did, no action resulted that was visible to me. (Lots of clicks, though. Got a badge and everything.) And second, and more importantly — even a supposedly bright-line rule will have fuzzy edges in specific circumstances, and it’ll be up to the interpretive discretion of the authorities to determine whether a given case falls on one side of the line or the other.
Which means, in the end, that I am in the camp that thinks the status quo is fine. It’s the intention of the usage, as perceived by the moderators, that matters, and there’s no reason to change this. We already expect the moderators to make judgment calls, and the introduction of a so-called bright line, however intentioned, won’t change that.
I don’t understand the harm created by the post in question. Does anyone think that the poster was actually advocating such a sentiment? If not, can someone explain why this is harmful? An explanation that is not circular (e.g., “I think it’s a rule violation and it’s wrong to violate a rule”) would be best.
What harm does this create? Who is harmed?
I suppose the position comes down to “Observing hate speech in any form at any time is distasteful to any/everyone, but most especially members of whatever group the hate speech is directed to. We want to avoid that harm. Therefore hate speech should not be said, quoted, referred to, or even acknowledged to exist in any form in other places and times. It should simply be non-existent. At least in our little safe-space world here.”
I find that desire to be weak-minded and the supporting argument to be bollocks, but I believe that is the argument.
Well, if that’s the argument, we’re in agreement. It’s beyond silly.
This is the summary, although it’s better to replace “hate speech” with “expression of hate”.
No, and that is ridiculous. No one has advocated the term can’t be discussed or acknowledged. Hell, we’ve discussed the use/mention distinction up thread. We’re all here discussing the term right now.
The issue is that this person used the term, in a sentence, calling the Vice President of the United States the n-word. Yes, they meant it ironically. So what? That’s never been an excuse in wider society.
That’s what gets me. You are acting like this is some rule for the SDMB as a sort of safe space. No, it’s the rule in US society and most of the west. You do not say that word. That’s why “n-word” exists. That’s why “hard-R” and “soft-R” exist to discuss variations.
The only place where the term is allowed is in some very academic contexts, and only as a mention, never a use. It is not allowed in everyday speech, period. It is definitely not allowed in irony or jokes.
You guys are the ones making special rules for this board. You have to know this. Not only do you not say it to others, but you don’t read it in books or magazines. Every other forum with hatespeech rules bans the word entirely.
The only people who say that word are racists. Because allowing loopholes just allows racists to exploit them, still with the intent to cause harm.
I could right now get someone banned for Reddit of all places if they said the n-word. Not a subreddit, the whole site. There’s a reason why AI is not trained on that word.
You guys are the ones who are being different, creating a space to allow the word. It’s not those of us trying to make a safe space without that word.
I am okay with discussion. But not using it ironically, which can be exploited. And I don’t get why this is treated like a minority opinion, when it’s the rule in the rest of society.
It is harmful to allow excuses to get away with using racist terms about black people. The ATMB argument I have made is that allowing ironic use creates a loophole. Racists love loopholes to try and get away with saying that word.
I don’t know what the guy intended. They haven’t come back and said. I still can’t see how calling VPOTUS a racist contributes anything to their post. But I don’t think intent has ever mattered with racism. We don’t tell kids it’s okay to say the n-word because they don’t know what it means.
And this was said. It wasn’t Bowdlerized. They just used the single most common way to beat word filters.
Did you not feel the disgust at seeing a black woman called a racist term? I did, and if it’s that bad for me, how bad can it be for those it affects? Yeah, after I read on, I can tell they’re using ironically. But there’s still no reason that they needed to say it at all.
As I said above, this just isn’t something that is allowed in society at large. Too many people abuse it. Too many people just want so badly to say this forbidden word. They intend to hurt, even if the person who said it here did not.
At the end of the day, having the mods have to figure out if the person really meant it is just going to create more arguments. And all in defense of being allowed to say a word we all know is awful–that is in fact unwelcoming to Black people, and large portions of the world.
It doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it, just like we can discuss racism in general without allowing it. But we don’t have to let it be used in this ironic, almost joking way.
And we don’t need to be different than every other board or every other community.
Oh, and if it matters, I had planned to make a therad on this much later once the original situation had died down. Because the way you guys are responding to this seems so utterly different than how I’ve ever seen this dealt with in modern times.
I suspect it’s an older culture vs. younger culture thing.
Even after reading the rest of that post???
I don’t think you understand its use in this context. Describing it as “ironic” doesn’t really capture it.
Language like that can be used effectively in an argument for shock value. If everyone is dancing around an issue - “oh, the other side isn’t really that bad” - it’s sometimes good to jolt people out of their complacency.
It must be done carefully to ensure that people understand your use of such language is describing how someone else thinks, and is not describing the group in question. Overuse, or use when shocking language isn’t called for, can lead to problems.
I don’t think this particular case was a good use of it. No one was arguing how great MAGAs are, so throwing in “n/99/r bitch” didn’t advance any argument, it was just shock for the sale of being shocking. But that makes it a bad argument (which doesn’t get moderated), not hate speech.
As for your insistence that this is a loophole that will be exploited, there is an easy solution. If someone exploits the loophole, moderate them. The moderators aren’t going to throw up their hands and say “damn, you got us!”
Yup. That’s the great thing about not having a bright line rule.
Tell Quentin Tarantino and Samuel L. Jackson that.
Demonstrably not true. Just in this thread alone.
Nothing to add to this. The “exploitable loophole” argument is extremely weak. Our mods know how to handle jerks.
I understand its use just fine. You don’t seem to understand we’re talking about the n-word. You are talking about it like it is some other word.
The n-word is different. It is not societally accepted to use it for shock value. Bill Maher did that, and everyone went after him for it, requiring him to apologize. That’s one of many examples where US society has made it clear that this tactic is no longer acceptable.
Blazing Saddles is irrelevant, as it is an old movie, and we are in 2024. What society accepts has changed. People aren’t wrong when they say certain things about that movie couldn’t be made today.
Do you guys forget the Netflix thing, where the rest of us were brought up to speed on what is allowed? The CFO who got fired because he had been listening to songs using the n-word and saying it, then when brought in front of the black culture sensitivity group, and got fired. The same Netflix that put out transphobic specials and defended it couldn’t defend the guy saying the n-word.
And your argument fails even if shock value was a valid exception. We’re dealing with something that is considered taboo. So you have to be careful. If you fail, you did the bad thing. And you are arguing they failed. They did not appropriately use it for shock value.
And this thread shows that any time that this gets used “ironically” in the future will result in a huge headache for the mods. Maybe they will wind up on the correct side. (Though it would help if they properly understood the use/mention distinction and didn’t feel the need to mock people like me who get upset by it.) But all the while creating a lot of unnecessary drama.
The thing I’ve not seen anyone argue is what would be lost by a blanket prohibition. What is it that is so important it must be defended? Why does the SDMB need to have a rule that is different?
For the use/mention distinction, it’s because we sometimes have academic discussions. So it makes sense we’d deviate a bit on that. (Though I still say you should just use “n-word” for mentions.) There’s logic behind it.
But not for ironic use. Not for shocking ironic use.
I’ve said I accept the ruling, BTW. I disagree, and think it will come back to bite them, but I accept it.
I wrote what I wrote because @LSLGuy misrepresented this position, in a strawman way. And because @Stratocaster asked for who it hurt.
You may disagree with my position. I obviously disagree with yours. But it doesn’t mean my argument is indefensible or babying or stupid.
It is, in fact, the majority argument elsewhere.
Besides just sniping back and forth, I do think there’s something interesting about the “put the word in someone else’s mouth” approach: it doesn’t neatly fall into the “use/mention” distinction. The person isn’t using the word as a slur, so it’s not exactly use. The person isn’t just mentioning the word as a cultural artifact, so it’s not exactly mention.
Instead, they’re imagining someone else using the word, as a way to attack that someone else.
If we’re trying to understand whether the word is acceptable by categorizing it as use or mention (use=unacceptable, mention=acceptable), I think we have an inadequate framework.
I don’t know a good name for this third sort of use of a slur. In general, if someone didn’t actually use a slur, putting it in their mouth is kinda gross, IMO.
Perhaps a touch ironically, that doesn’t really reflect the context in which I brought up that movie:
I think it’s substantively different.
Is it safe to presume that your answer to both of those questions would be ‘No?’