That is always going to be true. The answer is not to imbue words with magical properties that exist outside of the context in which they are used.
I disagree. It would be wrong to say that no-one can ever say the word.
This is the problem with not having a bright line rule.
This is the problem with having a bright line rule.
I kinda want to reserve the privilege to use the awful words for effect.
When someone says they want to repeal public accommodation laws I don’t want to post a bowdlerized version of the signs on businesses history shows us existed.
I want to rub their nose in the ugliness they’re advocating and shock the sensibilities of folks that might be thinking it’s a reasonable stance to take.
Posting the actual ugliness puts a point on the question that cannot be as easily ignored.
You assume it is disingenuous, you assume that person had racist intent, you assume I’m a racist for not automatically condemning them.
And in other cases I have complained (formally in some cases) where benign words were used for bigoted purposes. What does that tell you?
I do speak in defence of some horrible and unpopular individuals that’s true, speaking up here in favour of popular opinions is not of interest to me. That doesn’t mean I agree with what those people say. I support the right of the religious fundamentalists to spout objectively incorrect bullshit and yet manage not to agree with a word they say.
You sneer at the sort of work that I’ve done. I don’t know why. I have had a career where I have had to take unpopular stances in the face of pressure to do otherwise. I’ve seen groupthink and unthinking deference cause mayhem and my natural response is to be wary of it.
It has served me well and not once has anyone ever levelled an accusation of bigotry, racism or prejudice against me and I trust the opinion of those that know me over the superficial and biased interpretation of internet posters.
No you fucking tool. I did not assume anything. As the thread developed the original story of yet another innocent person martyred on the altar of Cancel Culture rapidly fell apart.
Then you came in with your usual shtick.
Everyone deserves a lawyer. Not everyone deserves a PR firm.
That is irrelevant to my central concept.
If the details show that there was racist context, usage and content then my position changes accordingly.
So “innocent until proven guilty” is the right way to go yes?
Everyone with a modicum of common sense AND a sense of fairness knows not to judge an incident on one side of the story. You knew there was going to more to it.
In a criminal court, yes. Otherwise the person can defend themselves. You sign on as the PR firm for a bunch of racists, people are going to assume you’re a racist. Or a venal piece of shit. Or both.
Okay. The context is that:
- The word has been used as part of a centuries-long racist social dynamic that’s resulted in torture, kidnapping, murder, and all other kinds of bad things, and that
- In general the folks who want to use the word are proponents of this widescale violence, and that
- Folks who oppose that widescale violence have in general agreed that people who aren’t potentially the targets of said racist violence shouldn’t use the word, and that
- This avoidance of the word has become a small but symbolic part of the effort to end said volence, and that
- Use of the word (by folks not targets of the violence) has thereby been increasingly isolated to folks who are okay with the violence.
You claim you’re arguing for considering context, but it seems to me that you ignore the historical and social context.
In a court of law, absolutely. Everywhere else, of course not.
Absolutely. I advocate starting from one position, you think we should start from the other. I’m happy to alter my opinion as more information comes in and also to ensure that, in terms of speech, intent and context are given due consideration.
Who is acting as a PR firm here? I know nothing about the person involved and held no opinion on him either way.
I mean, I hate Trump with a passion. Always have. If he was on trial on charges that I thought were spurious, or unduly politically motivated, I’d be speaking in defence of him. That would not be undertaking PR for him, I can easily hold the concept of him being innocent of certain charges whilst still being a contemptible human being.
You would have to be an idiot to assume that I was some kind of fan of his.
Your stance is either a symptom of, or a contributing factor in the nasty polarised atmosphere that passes now for debate. That people do make the assumptions you suggest is true enough, but that is not a good thing. It is something to be concerned about and it is certainly not a convincing reason for simply accepting accusations at face value.
But that is hardly an exhaustive list is it? It doesn’t even touch upon the context of usage or intent does it? and without knowledge of that you cannot make an assessment.
Everywhere else?
If the implications of extra-criminal accusations were all minimal and inconsequential then I’d agree. However that is not the case. Careers have been ended and reputations and finances ruined off the back of all sorts of accusations that later turned out to be false, not just those of racism.
Just because they don’t quite stray into criminal territory is no reason to throw an assumption of innocence out of the window.
It is not exhaustive. We also must consider that this happened on planet Earth, which is about 4.5 billion years old if I remember correctly, and that all parties involved are mammals, that we’re comprised primarily of elements like carbon and hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen, that the language that’s most important is English, and so on.
Or, y’know, we don’t need an exhaustive list of contexts, and asking for one is foolish.
Well, not on Saturn, nor on any of its moons except Titan.
Your nitpickery is stupid.
That is classic reductio ad absurdum and is as much of a fallacy as it ever was.
No listing of contextual considerations will capture all potential issues without going to the absurd lengths that you suggest. However, any list that does not refer to the context of how a word is used or the intent of that word is not an honest attempt to think seriously about it at all.
and this?
Is the same fallacy and again not a serious attempt to work through the implications of your line of thinking.
I put forward some thoughts on the very real and serious implications of accusations, you come back with a facetious comment and yet you feel justified in saying…
Your thoughts, however serious you think they are, aren’t that serious.
I made no qualitative judgement of my thoughts, but I did say that the implications of accusations are serious, which they are, which is clearly not something you think is worth addressing.
If you want to ignore what I said and keep on with the glib dismissive comments then that is your choice.
Except AFAICT, in the coach-resignation situation you were talking about, there haven’t been any accusations. A coach resigned because, he said, he did something wrong, which apparently involved saying the n-word. His boss said that the coach was doing the right thing to resign. We don’t know sufficient details about the incident to understand exactly what happened, but I have seen no accusations directed at the coach.
The only frivolous and irresponsible accusations that I can see here are those from you and all the other cancel-culture-deplorers pre-emptively accusing “cancel culture” of having somehow caused an injustice. Apparently those aren’t the kind of accusations that we need to worry about having “very real and serious implications”.
No you duplicitous tool, you do not get to draw the boundaries of context where it’s convenient for you.
It’s almost like folks are trying to cancel cancel culture!
I think false accusations of any kind are worthy of concern are they not?
If I came to an incorrect conclusion about a situation based on incomplete evidence then that is on me and it is up to me to say so.
However “accusing” a concept is not the same as “accusing” an actual human.
You are confused.
I’m not the one choosing to exclude intent and the context of usage (if that is indeed what was meant, that is still not clear)
Also, seeing as you already assume racism on my part, if you followed my argument you’d know that including intent and context of usage is hardly convenient. It allows for valid accusations of malignancy, prejudice and bigotry even without using any of the magical bad words.
Of course I am. I couldn’t otherwise see why you’d want to allow people to use racially offensive language and then rectally self-extract polite sounding justifications for why they “needed” to.
No one is fooled. You want to make the world 100% safe for Racism again.
If you’re worried about the possibility of drawing incorrect conclusions and making false accusations based on incomplete evidence, then why do you keep pulling speculative inferences out of your ass concerning a situation about which we don’t have anything more than incomplete evidence? You could just, you know, shut up about the situation unless and until you know the actual facts of it.
Your irresponsible clucking and tutting about what you think might be going on behind the resignation of this coach, based on zero definitive evidentiary support, is really undermining your attempts to present yourself as concerned about justice.